Our friends at Rorate helpfully posted the following. Pope Benedict XVI spoke to the French bishops on 14 September, which coincidentally the 1st anniversary of Summorum Pontificum coming into force.
Let us have a look at the pertinent text with my emphases and comments.
Here is a thought to carry with you as you start to read: I have maintained ever since the text of the Motu Proprio was issued that Summorum Pontificum is especially a gift to priests. Part of the Pope’s plan to revitalize the Church’s identity must revolve around her worship… and her priests. Learning the older Mass today changes priests. Priests change their flocks. Flocks change the world around them.
Okay…
It is never too often said that the priesthood is indispensable to the Church, in the very own interest of the lay faithful. Priests are a gift from God to the Church. Priests must never delegate to the faithful [those] functions which are related to their own mission. Dear Brothers in the episcopacy, I ask you to remain desirous to help your priests live in intimate union with Christ. Their spiritual life is the foundation of their apostolic life. You shall exhort them gently to daily prayer and to a dignified celebration of the Sacraments, particularly of the Eucharist and of Reconciliation, as Saint Francis de Sales did with his priests. Every priest should be able to feel glad to serve the Church. [Don’t be a stumbling block to priests.] At the school of the Curé d’Ars, son of your land and patron of all priests of the world, do not cease to repeat that a man can do no greater deed than to give the Body and the Blood of Christ to the faithful, and to forgive sins. …
[Watch this transition… from priesthood to…]
Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, and also of catechetical teaching. [Note the connection with doctrine. There is a reciprocal relationship between what we believe and how we pray.] Your mission of sanctification of the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. I was prompted to detail, in the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the conditions for the accomplishment of this mission, [the Pope closely links the use of the old Mass with the missionl of sanctification!] in that which relates to the possibility of using both the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) and that of Pope Paul VI (1970). [In this statement it sounds like the two Missals are on equal standing. And he is speaking of all priests, not some priests.] The fruits of these new dispositions have already seen [the light of] day, and I hope that the indispensable pacification of the spirits is being accomplished, thank God. [The word "pacification" suggests the desired effect of reunification with separated groups and also a calming and healing of those who have been hurt for so long.]
I comprehend your difficulties, [This is probably a reference to how some more traditional groups are also associated with certain political tendencies.] but I do not doubt that you will be able to reach, within reasonable time, solutions which are satisfactory to all, so that the seamless robe of Christ is not torn anymore. [Again the reference to reunification and preventing groups from splitting away from the Churc.] No one is excessive within the Church. [This is perhaps both prescriptive and descriptive. The idea here is that the Church is very large, capable of sheltering people of many points of view and aspirations.] Everyone, without exception, must be able to feel at home, and never rejected. [This is huge: The Pope is telling the French bishops to stop their relentless stinginess in regard to the more traditional Catholics in France. Alas, for far too long traditional Catholics – and among them especially priests – have been treated with great injustice – and not just in France!] God, who loves all men and wills that no one be lost, entrusts us with this mission of Pastors, making us Shepherds of His sheep. We can only give Him thanks for the honor and the confidence He places upon us. Let us endeavor to always be servants of unity.
Benedict XVI
Meeting with the Cardinals and Bishops of France,
Hémicycle «Saint Bernadette», Lourdes
September 14, 2008
"Everyone, without exception, must be able to feel at home, and never rejected."
This is not carte blanche to think or do as you please and that, just because you choose to do it, bishops and priests have to accept it.
There is still the rule of law. The rubrics still apply. The Rule of Faith is still our guide.
The Pope said this to, and note these terms, French bishops on Summorum Pontificum and priests.
Loading ...
). [In this statement it sounds like the two Missals are on equal standing. And he is speaking of all priests, not some priests.]
Father, please help me understand this statement.
I do not see how the Gregorian Rite Missal and the Missal of Pope Paul VI are of equal standing.
I have assisted extensively at both and there seems to be a world of diference between them.
What do you think the Holy Father is thinking here?
Also I am an infinitely better Catholic since assisting exclusively at the Gregorian Rite.
God bless you
God, who loves all men and wills that no one be lost
This line struck me more than all the others. It’s not just about the politics of the situation in France, it’s about saving souls. A gentle reminder to the Church in France (both laity and clergy) of her mission.
“I comprehend your difficulties, [This is probably a reference to how some more traditional groups are also associated with certain political tendencies.]”
My first reaction, based on context, was that Pope was referring to Bishop Fellay as a stiff-neck.
After being fibbed to for 43 years by our Popes about the “old” Mass
being abrogated, we are still being told the smaller fib that the two
Missals are of equal standing.
I pray to live to see the day that this fib too is undone.
Lord, restore your Church!
Pope Benedict is a very diplomatic, but firm shepherd. I think the French bishops who are intolerant of the TLM should be embarrassed and it
appears His Holiness has set them up for that perfectly. I guess I am not up on modern ecclesialogy. When the Pope speaks I would assume
that his bishops, whom he appoints, should give him great difference on matters which affect the well being of souls. Simply because
they do not like his decision or find it difficult to implement, that should be no excuse to ignore it or place roadblocks in the way.
I recall that Jesus Christ appointed one pope not thousands. I think Pope Benedict is gently reminding them of that important fact. And
I like the fact that he is recognizing the inherent dignity of all priests by vesting in them the decision to use the OF or EF. After all,
at the core of it all, bishops, cardinals and popes are priests. It’s ironic indeed that some bishops are complaining of the pope stripping
them of authority when that’s exactly what some of them are trying to do to their own priests. Tom
“in that which relates to the possibility of using both the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) and that of Pope Paul VI (1970). [In this statement it sounds like the two Missals are on equal standing. And he is speaking of all priests, not some priests.]”
The French: ” …aussi bien el missel du bienheureux Jean XXIII (1962) que celui de Pape Paul VI (1970)…”
Official English translation: “..with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970)…” . I think the “in addition to” is a rather better translation of the French idiomatic “aussi bien ..que” than “both … and”. The implication that both missals are on equal standing does not exist in the original text. And, I think, the connection of the priests’ mission of sanctification is therefore linked to both missals neutrally, with no preference for one over the other.
“Everyone, without exception, must be able to feel at home, and never rejected.”
)(
Yes, Holy Father, but our lips to God’s ears. Such things have no consideration here in this little bit of North Korea here in Los Angeles. What Tridentine Masses are said here are nominal and the Faithful still overly burdened with having to travel extensively to get to these Masses. There are many would love to attend these Masses but don’t simply because of the burden of distance. Kim Jong Mahoney Il couldn’t care less.
The Missals are on equal footing because the Pope says so. Got that? That is AUTHORITY not opinion based on your taste in Mass or translation. If you dacn’t find a TLM that you are able to get to then find a Good NO parish, and thank God you have that ability. If you are in a really bad situation, pray. It may be that God is calling you to move somewhere else. Please try to get beyond disecting the Mass as you would a frog. Do not select your Mass as you would a restaurant. Certainly you do not want to be scandalized; but, you must also be careful not to become pharisaical. The Pope is teaching and that is as good as it gets, because you have the assurance that God is working through him. Kicking against the goad only leads to anger and a lack of peace. If that is in your heart it did not come from God. If you are hurt deeply then remember the Triumph of the Cross. All suffering is a heavy cross and carrying it is not pleasant nor is hanging from one; but, the Glory to be received is beyond all comaparison. Read the epistle from today as 24th Monday NO. 1Cor.11 17-26, 33. Look at the Liturgical abuse some 30 years after the Ascension. We are some 1970 years from that and yes there are problems but we are still able to offer the Son to the FATHER is some 27 rites in the Roman Catholic Church. Today console our Sorrowful Mother in both forms and stand at the foot of the Cross with her.
I’ve just been listening to His Holiness via http://www.ktotv.com . The phrase “No one is excessive…” would be better rendered IMO as “No one is superfluous.”
Incidentally, having watched the French Masses it is clear that the Holy Father is reciting prayers both at the incensing of the gifts and at the incensing of the altar at the preparation of the gifts…today’s Mass is well worth a look.
Dan and Matt,
Gentlemen, may I ask you to please look at the Holy Father’s words a bit more carefully? He ties the use of both Missals (the EF and OF) to the terms of Summorum Pontificum–the juridical standing of both Missals. He’s saying that both enjoy the same legal status as legitimate uses. He’s telling the French bishops to get off the dime and be generous with a widespread use of the EF.
I really don’t believe that Pope Benedict is comparing the EF and OF on the basis of liturgical or theological value here. He’s certainly not saying that the OF as commonly offered is just as good in all respects as the TLM. If that were the case, he wouldn’t have to correct the French bishops–he would be telling us to make do with what we have. There’s an important distinction here between the legal status of the TLM and its spiritual or liturgical value. It’s the Holy Father’s recognition of the juridical fullness of the TLM that will, I pray, enable us to make the theolgical and liturgical case for its widespread restoration.
I also love the TLM and have found it to be a tremendous spiritual consolation, and I pray every day for its full restoration on all the altars of the Church. However, given the context of the Holy Father’s remarks (Rorate Caeli published a remarkable quote from Cardinal Vingt-Trois that basically said that “we don’t have to listen to the Roman Pontiff” because it’s not a CEO-type corporate model), putting the two Missals on an equal standing in France would be a tremendous step forward in the restoration of the Roman Rite to its full dignity.
It took forty years for the TLM to reemerge from the shadows–it will take, I suspect, an equally long time for its full glory to come to pass.
In Christ,
If Cardinal Vingt-Trois was accurately quoted, he may have “some splaining to do.!” Tom
Larry,
That is the biggest crock of s#** I’ve read in a long time….”Because the Pope says so” Oh really? The Pope “said so” at Assisi (JP II). Did that “come from God” as you say? Please.
Acs, do you think that if the Holy Father – the supreme legislator in the Church – said the extraordinary and ordinary forms were not juridically on an equal footing, that they would be juridically on an equal footing?
Jordanes,
The two are not equal. They are two different liturgies because they stem from two different theologies.
You didn’t answer my question, acs.
I don’t understand your question….You said, “If the pope said the extraordinary and ordinary forms were not juridically on an equal footing that they would be juridically on an equal footing?” That makes no sense. Explain yourself better and I will answer.
No, that’s not what I said at all. Let me rephrase it.
Here’s the scenario: The Pope decrees that the Johannine Missal and the Pauline Missal are not on equal footing in the eyes of Church law. In other words, Latin Rite Catholics would have a right to one of the missals but would need special permission (an indult) for the other.
If the Pope were to issue such a decree, do you believe that the two Missals nevertheless would be on equal footing in the eyes of Church law?
Dear Fr. Z,
Thanks for a balanced and prudent commentary on the words of His Holiness Benedict XVI.
I’m no canon lawyer and your question is purely hypothetical but….If a pope abrogates a Mass than it is abrogated. If he then turns around and grants an indult than the indulted Mass is just that…a Mass granted by permission. It is not equal in the eyes of church law. Again, I am not a canon lawyer and my answer to your hypothetical question may be wrong.
For those who doubt the legitamcy of the TLM, I recommend you research what Pope ST. Pius V ruled, declaring the mass the indult for all time!
Thanks, acs. Then it would appear that you are in essential agreement with Larry.
Acs, do you think that if the Holy Father – the supreme legislator in the Church – said the extraordinary and ordinary forms were not juridically on an equal footing, that they would be juridically on an equal footing?
Comment by Jordanes — 15 September 2008 @ 3:17 pm
I know that you wrote this to acs but I would like to address this
If the Holy Father said that the two forms of the Roman Rite were not juridically on an equal footing His Holiness would be correct, and then I would ask what His Holiness means by this.
If he said that they are juridically unequal because the Gregorian Rite of Mass expresses and confects the Sacrifice and the Substantial Presence in such a manner that eliminates much of the abuse that is prone to take place in the newer form ie: incorrect form and matter, substandard and borderline protestant textual aberations, etc, He would be correct.
But the Holy Father most certainly can be wrong in legislating.
He is not protected by the seal of infallibility in this.
Just because he has the authority to do something does not automatically make it right.
In that case it would not only be morally correct to disagree with a Pontiff, but could be sinful not to.
It seems that one commentator at least is making the same kind of error as I am accutomed to encountering over at Rorate Caeli (where I presume he read of Cardinal 23’s post-Lourdes comment). When the Cardinal says that the relationship between Pope and bishops “is not a servile relationship of subordination”, that the Church is not a multinational company where the Pope is CEO and the bishops his underlings, and that there exists a two-way conversation between them, he is not stating some apalling heresy but quite simply traditional Catholic ecclesiology.
The Pope is not and never has been an oriental satrap lording it over a passive episcopate. He is not MERELY “primus inter pares”, he enjoys true authority and universal jurisdiction, but he does so as a member of the college of bishops and not over and against it. In reviving the notion of collegiality, Vat II was not innovating but expressing a most traditional Catholic vision, although admittedly one which had tended to be forgotten in the era when the essentially secular notion of monarchical absolutism influenced the life of the Church.
There has always been tension (sometimes creative, sometimes destructive) between levels of authority in the Church, but no Pope has ever exercised the primacy without recourse to the collaboration of his brother bishops or without listening to them. Pius IX and Pius XII both consulted the college of bishops before defining the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption respectively.
One may think (as I indeed do) that in France right now the bishops are not sufficiently responsive to the Pope’s initiative, that they tend to attach too much weight to their own very gallic “specificité”, and that they remain just a little prone to tendancies of gallicanISM. It is nonetheless true that there is nothing in itself unorthodox, insubordinate or outrageous about the statement made by the Archbishop of Paris.
Jordanes
Neither Mass is abrogated so your scenario is asinine and the pope has not come out and said “juridically” that the NO is “equal” to the TLM…now has he? No, and he won’t either. I most certainly DON’T agree with Larry. I WILL select my Mass and further more I will select the ENTIRE Catholic Faith by sticking with the SSPX.
Although Fr. Paul may be correct vis-a-vis how a Pope prudentially exercises his power, Fr. Paul is not correct, in my view, in his use of the phrase “not over and against it” (the College). Also, just because no Pope has failed to consult to various extents before exercising their jurisdiction, does not mean that they cannot. Note the following canons that I cited at Rorate Caeli (my bolds):
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 375
§2. Through episcopal consecration itself, bishops receive with the function of sanctifying also the functions of teaching and governing; by their nature, however, these can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.
So does the Pope ordinarily lead his brother bishops by exhortation and example? Of course. But he is not constrained to do so. Bishops owe the same obedience to the Roman Pontiff as does any Catholic, notwithstanding their particular relationship to him and their exercise of the jurisdiction proper to their office.
acs: And because of your nasty tone on my blog, you won’t be posting much here anymore.
If the TLM was never abrogated, then the Novus Ordo is by efault and definition “under the indult” because it, not the Traditional Roman Liturgy, is the novel, departure from Tradition requiring the aforesaid indult permission to be celebrated.
The Church’s liturgical laws are all still bass ackwards on this point.
The Pope can no more abrogate the Canon of the Mass codified by Trent, anymore then he could abrogate the Canon of the Bible, codified by the same Council. “Canon” by definition means an unchangeable aspect of the faith in these particular applications.
The Pope can permit a novel, new Mass, but this said Mass will never be the law. It will always be the exception to it.
So, in summation. The Two forms are NOT on equal footing. Never have been, and never will be, no matter whichever Pope says what.
One could also add paragraph 22 of Lumen Gentium where we see explicitly that it is not possible for the Pope to be “over and against the College” – there is NO College without the head, the Roman Pontiff:
But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.
Whilst Cardinal V-T was not wrong to say that the Pope’s relationship to the bishops was not as a CEO (after all, the Pope’s authority is supernatural in origin, not material), the Cardinal’s rhetorical efforts were clearly intended to minimize the Holy Father’s immediate jurisdiction as a matter of course.
Acs said: Neither Mass is abrogated so your scenario is asinine
It was a hypothetical — and the scenario I suggested did exist in fact until a year ago.
and the pope has not come out and said “juridically” that the NO is “equal” to the TLM…now has he?
Yes he did, in Summorum Pontificum. In the eyes of Church law, both forms are on equal footing.
I most certainly DON’T agree with Larry.
I don’t see how your position differs from Larry’s.
I WILL select my Mass and further more I will select the ENTIRE Catholic Faith by sticking with the SSPX.
For the “entire” Catholic faith, it’s better to seek a Mass celebrated by a priest who is not suspended a divinis.
Dan said: If the Holy Father said that the two forms of the Roman Rite were not juridically on an equal footing His Holiness would be correct, and then I would ask what His Holiness means by this.
Yes, he would be correct, since he is the supreme legislator of the Church — so long as what he says is not in conflict with the faith or with any divine law.
If he said that they are juridically unequal because the Gregorian Rite of Mass expresses and confects the Sacrifice and the Substantial Presence in such a manner that eliminates much of the abuse that is prone to take place in the newer form ie: incorrect form and matter, substandard and borderline protestant textual aberations, etc, He would be correct.
You seem to be confusing “qualitatively unequal” with “juridically unequal.” It can hardly be disputed that the two uses are qualitatively unequal (which doesn’t necessarily mean that one is inferior to the other, though it can mean that), but juridically there are on an equal footing.
But the Holy Father most certainly can be wrong in legislating.
Yes.
He is not protected by the seal of infallibility in this.
Yes.
Just because he has the authority to do something does not automatically make it right.
Yes.
Matt said: If the TLM was never abrogated, then the Novus Ordo is by default and definition “under the indult” because it, not the Traditional Roman Liturgy, is the novel, departure from Tradition requiring the aforesaid indult permission to be celebrated.
No, that’s all wrong. Just because one liturgical form has not been abrogated, that doesn’t mean that a newer form is only permitted by special indult. The Second Vatican Council and the Pope called for a reform of the liturgy, and the reformed missal was implemented by a papal apostolic constitution, that is, by the highest level of authority that exists in the
Church. The Church did not abrogate the old missal, but She did enact the new missal as a fundamental liturgical law of the Latin Church. She didn’t call that enactment an indult, so it is impossible to classify the reformed liturgy as a departure from universal law due to special circumstances.
The Pope can no more abrogate the Canon of the Mass codified by Trent, anymore then he could abrogate the Canon of the Bible, codified by the same Council. “Canon” by definition means an unchangeable aspect of the faith in these particular applications.
You couldn’t be more wrong. The Roman Canon has changed over time, and is not a part of the deposit of faith. The biblical canon, however, is an unchangeable part of the deposit of faith, something to be believed de fide. The traditional Roman Eucharistic Prayer is called the “canon” because it is the chief fixed “unchanging” part of the Mass, not because the Church lacks the authority ever to change it.
The Pope can permit a novel, new Mass, but this said Mass will never be the law. It will always be the exception to it.
No, the Pope can do more than permit a reformed Missal, he can require it to be celebrated. The Church teaches that the Holy See has ultimate and final authority over changes in the liturgy. (See Mediator Dei)
ALL: Perhaps it would be good to remember that, IMO, Summorum Pontificum, provided a juridical solution to the problem of priest’s faculties to say the TLM and use the older Ritual. The Motu Proprio doesn’t really go so far as to end all the theological and historical questions which can be asked and studied.
Keep in mind that the NO and TLM are on an equal juridical footing: a priest with faculties to say Mass can say Mass with either book. That doesn’t close the door on discussion about the differences between the two uses of the Roman Rite, always, however applying the a proper hermeneutic, informed by continuity, when doing so.
Fr. Z,
Did not S.P. grant each parish the right to say one and only one TLM on Sundays, while the N.O. can be said at any or all Sunday masses? If so, then how is it that they are on equal juridical footing?
I think to really be equal juridically, the TLM would need to simply be added as an option to the Missal, so that any priest, when he is to say mass, could say any approved mass, whether Novus Ordo, or Traditional. (Just as a priest can now choose canon 1, 2 ,3, or 4 or select from any of the \’penitential rites\’ or any of the other multitude of options in the reformed liturgy.)
and I’m not sure how it’s possible to apply a “hermeneutic of continuity” to the reform of the mass. It was so abrupt and clearly discontinuous to abrogate the old in favor of this newly created mass. I know it is common to say that the old mass was not abrogated, but keep in mind the Holy Father has said that the old mass was never “juridically” abrogated. It was very clearly abrogated, however.
David Kastel: I’m not sure how it’s possible to apply a “hermeneutic of continuity” to the reform of the mass
On one level I can see what you mean: the new Mass was something of a lab creation. On another level, however, I think one must admit a certain level of continuity. The basic structure of the Mass has an historical foundation as well as many of the prayers. Even those EF prayers that were revised still have some semblance to the original, so that there was not a complete rupture. I think the rupture occurred more in the method used to “reform” the new Mass, not so much in the content, much of which has historical roots, even if they do not pertain so much to the most recent past.
Fr. Z: because your blog originated as offering slavishly accurate translations, you might be interested to learn that as of this posting, the Vatican website does NOT have an official English translation of the address to the French bishops posted yet. Zenit does have one, and as often happens, the translation is not “slavishly accurate.” It more or less resembles the one by Rorate.
This is the original French:
J’ai été amené à préciser, dans le Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, les conditions d’exercice de cette charge, en ce qui concerne la possibilité d’utiliser aussi bien le missel du bienheureux Jean XXIII (1962) que celui du Pape Paul VI (1970).
More literal translation:
I was led to specify [make clear], in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the conditions of exercising this charge [i.e. carrying out this duty], in that which concerns the possibility of using the missal of the blessed John XXIII as well as [“aussi” = also][“bien” = well] the one of Paul VI.
As for the statement: “no one is excessive in the Church,” Zenit has: “Everyone has a place in the Church.” The French says: “Nul n’est de trop dans l’Église,” which is rather informal language, saying: “no one is ‘too much’ [unwanted, superfluous] in the Church.” The idiomatic expression “etre de trop” means being a third wheel.
Since so much of this turns on what we mean by equal, I think it might be helpful to note the different senses ‘equal’ can have, in English at least.
We can speak of equality as identity, as is common in mathematics. So if 2+2=4, this means every time we have the number 4, we could replace it with (2+2) without effecting the truth of the equation: 4+4=8 and (2+2)+(2+2)=8. Since both masses are valid, we might be tempted to apply ‘equal’ in this sense (stretching it a bit) but we would be mistaken as the following propositions shows: “The OF was written after VII” — we could not replace OF with EF in that sentence. So they are not identical in this sense.
The logician G. Frege made a famous distinction between sense and reference and it would be relevant if we wanted to push this further. So ‘morning star’ and ‘evening star’ have differing senses, but the same reference (Venus): they both refer to the same thing, and are therefore identical in reference, but cannot be switched around without changing the meaning of the sentence, and even its truth or falsity.. Perhaps one could suggest that this what is going on with the OF/EF: differing senses, but the same reference, but that is a speculative point I would want to pursue here.
On the other hand, there is legal equality, which does not imply identity but only that two persons or entities are able to claim the same rights, privileges and duties as the other. But legal equality is not at all the same as mathematical equality. I am legally equal to many people that I am not identical to. De facto, given the responses of many bishops to SP, one might argue that legal equality is observed more in the breach. But the case could be made that de jure, the two are meant to be equal I think this is Fr. Z’s reading.
One could go further: moral equality could exist without either mathematical or legal equalty. So two actions could be equally fine and good, without this being recognized juridically (legal equality) or being identical. So, the Mozarabic or Ambrosian rites vis a vis the Roman rite come to mind here.
So, in a nutshell, when we are debating whether or not the two forms of the mass are equal, it might be helpful to be more specific as to what we have in mind when we use the term.
I think that B XVI would wants to say the forms of the mass, celebrated properly, are morally and legally equal but not mathematically equal/identical.
Matt Q – You make mention of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles being akin to North Korea in terms of access to traditional liturgies. I thought so myself until I found Ss. Peter and Paul in Wilmington. Granted, it’s not a great neighborhood, but the liturgy is solid. Latin is used heavily in the NO Mass, and an EF is offered every Sunday at 6:30am.
Though that TLM is the only regularly scheduled one in LA County (to my knowledge) there are also weekly TLMs in Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and San Juan Capistrano.
I too have been quite frustrated with the state of things in our Archdiocese – the best thing we can do is pray for our Archbishop and give him the respect his office requires.
Aelric
I suspect you are reading to much into my phrase \”over and against\”. I did not mean that the Pope cannot or should not exercise authority \”over\” the college. That would plainly run contrary to the texts you aptly quote. I meant simply that his authority is exercised from within the college and not from outside it (taking the prepositions I used in their literal and “spatial” sense), and that the college enjoys a real authority by divine right and not merely by delegation from the Pope (as might be the case of more junior executives in relation to their CEO).
As to what the Cardinal meant – are we not bound to use caution before leaping to conclusions? You MAY be right about his intentions, but many people on blogs tend to forget that they and those who think like them are not the only people in the world, and they do not have an exclusive right to be taken into consideration by authorities in the Church. People like Cardinal V-T are under pressure also from those who see them as insufficiently defensive of the “rights and liberties of the Gallican Church”. In reply to them he would be correct in making the point that there is always a conversation going on between the Pope and the episcopate. In fact B XVI like most Popes prefers persuasion to brute force when it comes to his brother bishops. Neither of us have access to the Cardinal’s inner forum, so should we not give him the benefit of the doubt? If we wish to persuade people like him to be more generous in implementing SP, is this not wiser than a confrontational approach? Is it not also more intrinsically just and charitable?
I’ve just read the comment on CWN on the Pope’s speech and the reaction of the French bishops, including his Emminence Cardinal 23. It’s analysis is also that there is a desire to distance himself from the Pope in the Cardinal’s words, but it puts the matter in context, takes care to distinguish fact from interpretation, and it seems to me that the writer both understands and exposes neatly the Holy Father’s strategy: in speaking of tolerance, the Pope is merely pointing out the internal contradiction in the hostility of “liberal” Catholics to SP. In fact, the piece seems to ma a model of Catholic journalism. I recommend it to all who have participated in this discussion: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60187
Adam wrote:
“Matt Q – You make mention of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles being akin to North Korea in terms of access to traditional liturgies. I thought so myself until I found Ss. Peter and Paul in Wilmington. Granted, it’s not a great neighborhood, but the liturgy is solid. Latin is used heavily in the NO Mass, and an EF is offered every Sunday at 6:30am.
Though that TLM is the only regularly scheduled one in LA County (to my knowledge) there are also weekly TLMs in Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and San Juan Capistrano.
I too have been quite frustrated with the state of things in our Archdiocese – the best thing we can do is pray for our Archbishop and give him the respect his office requires.”
)(
Dear Adam:
Thank you for your encouragement. It was very kind of you to offer that information on the Tridentine Masses. If you are nearby, there is also Saint Therese in Alhambra ( 510 N El Molino Rd at Alhambra Rd ). Tridentine Masses are said every Sunday at 1:00. It is a Carmelite parish. There is also a Mass every second Tuesday of the month at Santa Teresita Medical, Duarte, at 10:00. We hope as many as possible can attend these Masses.
Thanks again. God bless.
The Popes can add, and did add to the Mass, even the Canon (only in 1962
with one word – Joseph), but NEVER did the Popes take away from the heart
of the Mass, which is the anaphora. The New Mass(es) are a massive departure from
Roman custom, by not only mangling the Canon, but creating 26+ totally
new, “on-the-spot” anaphoras. There is no New Mass, but only a plethora
of new Masses, all of which are clear novelties.
It is akin to receiving Communion in the hand. Receiving in the hand will
never be the law, because it is a novelty, the departure.
It will always be the optional indult.
In spite of this, many Bishops treated communion on the tongue as being abrogated by a new law. So too, and it is exactly the same attitude with the New Mass, an stance
reinforced by 40 years of similar Papal attitudes.
Another example is sacred language, the vernacular will always be the indult,
never the law, because this is not immemorial Catholic tradition.
People forget that the Slavic people were granted an INDULT to have the
liturgy in the vernacular. Because the liturgy was always offered in
one of the Sacred languages. Even here, this
proclaimed that vernacular slavonic liturgy was a departure from Church tradition. Easterns th
So too with the 26+ new Masses…..they are all novelties and are therefore
under the indult. The Traditional Roman Mass, which was guaranteed to Catholics
by Divine Right, at Trent, and with Saint Pius V’s QP, can never be abrogated.
Catholics and more specifically priests, were promised that they would NEVER
be persecuted if they said this Mass. This Mass (which was not a new Mass!)
was codified to be the rock of orthodoxy, as a result of
massive protestant upheaval.
It was therefore totally illegal for the Popes to act like protestants by
banning this Mass and punishing Catholic priests for saying it.
This is historic fact, which the Pope himself, is now openly acknowledging.
The Pope is saying this, not me. It’s only a matter of time before the logical
consequences of this admission follow.
Jordanes is the “continuity of rupture” adherent who believes that the Pope
can abrogate the Traditional Mass on a whim and replace it with an entirely
new “tradition” any time he feels like it. Get real. Get with the times already.
There is a legal right and then a moral right. In the case of the Traditional
Mass, the Pope doesn’t even have the former. One flows from organic
Tradition, the other is a “banal, fabricated, on-the-spot- product” created
by a committee to appease modern man.
It is not a stretch then, and we will see it in our lifetime, where the new
Rites are placed under a proper, optional indult status, while the
Traditional Roman Liturgy is maintained as the norm of law.
This course has already been plotted by the Holy Father.
Sorry for double post.
I just want to clarify that I am not arguing against the legalities of both forms.
I 100% agree with Fr. Z’s post on MP being a juridical solution.
The affront to the traditional form had to be dealth with in this manner given
modern realities.
So too, with communion in the hand. If the indult is there, then both
manners are juridically valid for reception. However remember that one is law,
based on Catholic tradition, the other is the exception to that law.
I argue that those who see the EF and OF being on the same level when it comes
to tradition and force of law are not correct. Had things gone right,
and we all know they did not, because it took 43 years for the Holy
Father to admit that the old Mass was not legally abrogated, even when we all
knew that it had been totally abrogated in practise, the EF would really be the
OF and the OF would really be the EF.
The former is the basis of law, the new is always the indult.
Matt said: The Popes can add, and did add to the Mass, even the Canon (only in 1962 with one word – Joseph),
The evidence it pretty clear that it took a few centuries for the Roman Canon to reach itself basic and perennial form. Therefore it follows that even the Canon is not wholly untouchable.
but NEVER did the Popes take away from the heart of the Mass, which is the anaphora.
Yes, I agree the Popes have never taken away from the heart of the Mass. Every approved Eucharistic prayer or anaphora is fitting and appropriate.
There is no New Mass, but only a plethora of new Masses, all of which are clear novelties.
Every Eucharistic liturgy was a novelty at one time or other. In principle there can be no objection to the Church authorising new Eucharistic prayers, even though it is by no means advisable to spin out so many and to do so as frequently as we’ve been seeing. Such can only knock the liturgy of its equilibrium, creating a pastoral nightmare.
It is akin to receiving Communion in the hand. Receiving in the hand will never be the law, because it is a novelty, the departure. It will always be the optional indult.
You’re wrong there. Maybe it will always be an indult, but if the Church changes her universal law of reception of Communion such that it may be either on the tongue or in the hand, or even, God forbid, in the hand only, then Communion in the hand would no longer be an optional indult.
Another example is sacred language, the vernacular will always be the indult, never the law, because this is not immemorial Catholic tradition. People forget that the Slavic people were granted an INDULT to have the liturgy in the vernacular. Because the liturgy was always offered in one of the Sacred languages.
Aramaic is one of the sacred languages, but in the first century it was also a vernacular. Same with Hebrew and most certainly with koine Greek. Liturgy in the vernacular has ancient roots. The Church has the authority to celebrate liturgy in the vernacular, whether by indult or by changing her universal law.
So too with the 26+ new Masses…..they are all novelties and are therefore under the indult.
No, just because a custom or law or tradition is new doesn’t make it an indult or an exception to the law.
The Traditional Roman Mass, which was guaranteed to Catholics by Divine Right, at Trent, and with Saint Pius V’s QP, can never be abrogated.
Perhaps, but I think you’re on pretty shaky ground there. “Has not been abrogated” doesn’t necessarily imply “can never be abrogated.”
Catholics and more specifically priests, were promised that they would NEVER be persecuted if they said this Mass. This Mass (which was not a new Mass!) was codified to be the rock of orthodoxy, as a result of massive protestant upheaval.
Aren’t the Eucharistic liturgies of the Eastern Churches also rocks of orthodoxy?
It was therefore totally illegal for the Popes to act like protestants by banning this Mass and punishing Catholic priests for saying it. This is historic fact, which the Pope himself, is now openly acknowledging. The Pope is saying this, not me. It’s only a matter of time before the logical consequences of this admission follow.
The Pope has never made any such admission. The Holy See has said the old Mass wasn’t abrogated and therefore it was wrong for priests to be punished or harassed for celebrating it, but there has been no acknowledgement that it was illegal for the Pope to (attempt to) abrogate it.
Jordanes is the “continuity of rupture” adherent who believes that the Pope can abrogate the Traditional Mass on a whim and replace it with an entirely new “tradition” any time he feels like it.
Straw man fallacy. I’ve neither said nor implied any such thing, nor do I believe that.
There is a legal right and then a moral right.
Yes. A legal right to suppress the old Mass? Very probably yes. A moral right? Very, very probably no.
In the case of the Traditional Mass, the Pope doesn’t even have the former.
I think you’ll have a tough time making that case, in light of what Vatican I and Mediator Dei have to say.
It is not a stretch then, and we will see it in our lifetime, where the new Rites are placed under a proper, optional indult status, while the Traditional Roman Liturgy is maintained as the norm of law.
Well, we can always dream. I don’t know how old you are, but I’m middle-aged, and I am pretty skeptical that, if God gives me a natural span of life, I will live long enough to see that happen. I believe it would be easier to unbreak an egg than to undo the unprecedented, botched liturgical reform. All that can be done is to try, with patience and persistence, to gradually shift things back toward liturgical sanity.
I argue that those who see the EF and OF being on the same level when it comes to tradition and force of law are not correct.
In force of law, they’re on the same level, but of course they’re not on the same level when it comes to tradition: that’s a physical and ontological impossibility.
“Aren’t the Eucharistic liturgies of the Eastern Churches also rocks of orthodoxy?”
No. The Roman Liturgy has primacy of honour over all others, because
Rome was the lone Patriarchal See which never fell into heresy during the
First Millenium.
All the Eastern Sees fell into heresy at one time or another, and at certain
times ALL of them were in heresy. Therefore the Roman liturgy is the only
“pure” one. Not that the others are heretical, but they were all celebrated
by heretics for many periods of history. The Roman Rite changed the least
over the course of history. The Canon was unchanged from the time of Pope
Saint Gregory, hence the term: Gregorian Rite.
This is liturgy 101 for Roman Catholics. You read this in many
Pre-Vatican II books. Please study the history of the Mass, Jungman’s
The Early Roman Liturgy is a good place to start.
“I think you’ll have a tough time making that case, in light of what Vatican I and Mediator Dei have to say.”
Your statement begs the question, have you ever read Pastor Aeternus
or Mediator Dei?
..btw I’m 34 years old.
“In force of law, they’re on the same level, but of course they’re not on the same level when it comes to tradition: that’s a physical and ontological impossibility”.
This is the most sensible thing you’ve said in this thread and makes up for
the previous questionable statements.
Matt said: The Roman Liturgy has primacy of honour over all others, because Rome was the lone Patriarchal See which never fell into heresy during the First Millenium.
That the Roman See has never fallen into heresy does not mean that the other Catholic liturgies are less than orthodox, as you yourself admit.
All the Eastern Sees fell into heresy at one time or another, and at certain times ALL of them were in heresy. Therefore the Roman liturgy is the only “pure” one. Not that the others are heretical, but they were all celebrated by heretics for many periods of history.
Sorry, that’s not logical at all. One cannot judge whether or not a liturgy is “pure” or doctrinally orthodox by who celebrates it or who has celebrated it in the past. Otherwise we could conclude that the traditional Roman Mass is corrupt because it has been celebrated by priests, bishops, and Popes who were unchaste. Moral failings of a celebrant cannot rub off of a liturgical rite, nor can the orthodoxy of a rite be judged by whether or not it is the rite of a See in communion with and in doctrinal agreement with Rome.
Look at it this way: does it tell us anything at all about the traditional Roman Rite that it is celebrated by the priests of the SSPX, all of whom are suspend a divinis?
The Roman Rite changed the least over the course of history.
I’m not sure that is true, but even if it is, I would suggest that “changed the least” isn’t saying much. All in all, the other ancient liturgies didn’t change all that much either.
This is liturgy 101 for Roman Catholics. You read this in many Pre-Vatican II books. Please study the history of the Mass, Jungman’s The Early Roman Liturgy is a good place to start.
I was think of suggesting the same to you, especially given your earlier doctrinal error identifying the Roman Canon as an irreformable element of the deposit of faith like the canon of Holy Scripture.
“I think you’ll have a tough time making that case, in light of what Vatican I and Mediator Dei have to say.”
Your statement begs the question, have you ever read Pastor Aeternus or Mediator Dei?
Yes. How about you?
“Sorry, that’s not logical at all. One cannot judge whether or not a liturgy is “pure” or doctrinally orthodox by who celebrates”.
Many notable Catholic doctors and theologians said precisely that over centuries,
and I take their word over yours. You are attempting to relativise liturgy
again, and I won’t agree with you.
Simply put, a liturgy cannot be a “bedrock of orthodoxy”, if the
priests, bishops and patriarchs celebrating it keep repeatedly turning
into heretics or schismatics en masse (even to this day when you think about it).
That was your point, and that it why I disgreed. There is
only one liturgy which is the bedrock, and that is the one celebrated by
ancient Rome, because even back in the ancient words of Ireneus, its heritage
is superior to all others, because its founders were Saints Peter and Paul themselves.
Its liturgical patrimony has always been second to none (well until
1965 anyway).
You can “retcon” the legitimacy of New Mass all you want back into Vatican I,
and Mediator Dei.
The rest of us will just sit back and chuckle, realizing that the entire
concept would be anathema to Pius IX and Pius XII, a fact clear for any
student of Catholic history and culture. The New Mass itself,
is based on precisely the “false archeologism” and modernism that Pius XII
stridently condemns in that document, anticipating what was coming down the pike!
Matt said: Many notable Catholic doctors and theologians said precisely that over centuries, and I take their word over yours.
Yes, many notable Catholic doctors and theologians have said things that aren’t true, but I’d be interested if you could provide some evidence that any of them held the position that a liturgy’s orthodoxy is determined by whether or not its celebrants hold, or in the past held, to erroneous beliefs.
I do recall that, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas argued against the Immaculate Conception, even though he celebrated an earlier form of the Latin liturgy. (He was a Dominican — was that the Dominican Rite?)
You are attempting to relativise liturgy again . . .
“Again”?
Simply put, a liturgy cannot be a “bedrock of orthodoxy”, if the priests, bishops and patriarchs celebrating it keep repeatedly turning into heretics or schismatics en masse (even to this day when you think about it).
Is that the fault of the liturgy, though?
Have you forgotten that it is those who were nurtured and fed by the traditional Roman Rite that gave us the botched liturgical reform?
That was your point, and that it why I disgreed.
But history tells us that a liturgy can be strongly orthodox and still be celebrated by heretics.
There is only one liturgy which is the bedrock, and that is the one celebrated by ancient Rome, because even back in the ancient words of Ireneus, its heritage is superior to all others, because its founders were Saints Peter and Paul themselves.
Trouble is, in the days of St. Irenaeus the Roman Rite was not yet in the form it would eventually reach by the late 500s A.D. Indeed, in the latter 200s A.D. it’s quite possible the Roman Church still celebrated the Eucharist chiefly in Greek. And yet the Roman Church in his day still held the primacy due to its superior origins, authority, and tradition.
You can “retcon” the legitimacy of New Mass all you want back into Vatican I, and Mediator Dei.
The reformed Roman Rite may be criticised for many things, but its “legitimacy” is firmly established.
The rest of us will just sit back and chuckle, realizing that the entire concept would be anathema to Pius IX and Pius XII, a fact clear for any student of Catholic history and culture. The New Mass itself, is based on precisely the “false archeologism”
True, the Consilium did engage in archaeologism, ignoring what Pius XII said.
and modernism
The reformed Roman Rite, for all its flaws, cannot be accused of Modernism, not if we judge it by the Syllabus or Pascendi.
that Pius XII stridently condemns in that document, anticipating what was coming down the pike!
Interestingly enough, some traditionalists complain that Mediator Dei in fact paved the way for the unprecedented overhaul of the Roman Rite that followed just a few years later, and they reject Pius XII’s liturgical reforms as where things began going to hell (others point back even earlier, to the reform of the Breviary around the turn of last century).
You are fighting heavily armed straw men again. The Roman Liturgy has
primacy of honour, pure and simple. No one is arguing that Eastern liturgies
are unorthodox or inferior in form, but they do not have the same level of
honour accorded the Roman Rite for reasons outlined 100’s of time in old
Catholic texts.
I’ve never argued against organic growth…please keep to the
topic…as this is becoming quite pointless. Did I ever criticise the
1962 Missal??? Do we knuckle dragging Trads reject John XXIII’s changes?
I vehemently disagree with his Aggiornamento philosphy, but I have no issue
with the 1962 changes, none, nada, because they are still in accord with
Traditional papal perogative and not attempting to retcon Catholic worship.
See, the crux of your argument really hits a brick wall. You keep referencing
the Eastern liturgies, and yet none of them would ever fathom a “New Mass”
Can you imagine the Byzantines abandoning Saint John Chrysostom for Bungini?
The Monks of Athos abandoning chant for Carey Landry? Re-arranging the
sanctuary. Scrapping their Traditional calendar. Removing incense and bells?
Having a conference and writing 26 “New” “eastern” “orthodox” “traditional”
anaphoras? Allowing female altar servers? ect, ect, ect. Communion in the hand?
My goodness, would there be anything left to call Byzantine?
Wow, look in a mirror and now say the same thing about the Roman Rite?
This is really where your argument hits the skids my friend.
Trying to use the Eastern Rites to validate the New Mass is akin to using
Mozart to validate Donny Osmond.
Pius XII started the problem, by ignoring his own principles in 1955. However
despite messing about a bit, few trads disobey the changes, and many applaud
the ones made to Holy Week. There were abrupt, but not AGAINST tradition.
The New Mass is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Just let me ask, have you ever been to a traditional Mass?
Matt said: You are fighting heavily armed straw men again.
Yes, I know. I wish you’d quit strewing the field of battle with them. ;-)
The Roman Liturgy has primacy of honour, pure and simple. No one is arguing that Eastern liturgies are unorthodox or inferior in form, but they do not have the same level of honour accorded the Roman Rite for reasons outlined 100’s of time in old Catholic texts.
It’s got nothing to do with a liturgy’s primacy of honor. You made the point of spotlighting the old “Tridentine” Missal as a rock of orthodoxy, particularly to strengthen the faithful against Protestantism. But the other ancient liturgies of the Church are also thoroughly orthodox (as were the pre-Tridentine Western rites that grew from the Roman rite), and the Eastern Orthodox, for example, proved to be pretty resistant to the Calvinising teachings of Cyril Lucaris. Now you’ve proceeded to highlight that the other ancient rites were at various times celebrated by heretics and schismatics, while denying that that means those liturgies aren’t orthodox. So, what point are you making, or trying to make?
Did I ever criticise the 1962 Missal???
No.
Do we knuckle dragging Trads reject John XXIII’s changes?
Well, whatever their posture, yes, there are some traditionalists who reject the 1962 Missal.
See, the crux of your argument really hits a brick wall. You keep referencing the Eastern liturgies, and yet none of them would ever fathom a “New Mass.”
I only brought them up because you described the “Tridentine” Missal as “the” rock of orthodoxy rather than “a” rock of orthodoxy, or the “chief” rock of orthodoxy. I did not mention them to legitimize the reformed Roman Rite, which already has all the legitimacy it needs, and I apologise for giving the impression that I had. On that subject, however, I would say that the reformed Mass cannot be rejected as heterodox, even though the traditional Mass does a far better job of conveying and teaching the essence and substance of the faith in my opinion (and in the opinion of many others).
Trying to use the Eastern Rites to validate the New Mass is akin to using Mozart to validate Donny Osmond.
Now there’s a vivid word picture for you! Very effective.
Just let me ask, have you ever been to a traditional Mass?
Yes. I’ve also been to Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgies. I have to confess, though the “Tridentine” Mass is, in my view, undeniably superior to the reformed Mass, still I prefer the Byzantine liturgy, and regret that it is no longer available where I live. Maybe it’s the attraction for a liturgy with which my grandparents and great-grandparents would have been familiar, or maybe it’s the pure delight of singing throughout the entire liturgy without singing even one extraliturgical hymn. I do appreciate the silence and calm of a Low Mass, though.
“I like the fact that he is recognizing the inherent dignity of all priests by vesting in them the decision to use the OF or EF. ” TJM, 9/15 9:34 AM
Someone said (paraphrase) on Catholic Radio Q&A … if an angel and a priest are standing side by side, whom do we greet first? We greet the priest first. The reason is that the priest transforms bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. The angel cannot. That is how much the dignity a priest has.
Tom L
talking about Summorum Pontificum, those who understand french, like i think FR Z. does, will find this interesting. a video from Pope Benedict visit in Paris, and the FSSP and some Scouts have a large banner unfurled thanking the Holy Father for the Summorum Pontificum, but what is interesting is the women reporter excellent commentary, and the TELLING commentary, especially at the end, by the French Parisian Priest who is adding commentary for the trip, and he is in charge of something in the Paris episcopate.
http://www.gloria.tv/?video=iuqlhit31oo2h6tbczmx
pax