An alarming TLM at Toronto’s seminary

From Toronto Catholic Blog comes this.

Now… don’t freak out.  Just remember that this is a brick by brick process.

Some people will rush to all sorts of exaggerations.

Take the report for what it is worth.

I hope, frankly, it is all false.

First Traditional Latin Mass in 40 years results in liturgical abuse!

For the first time in forty years, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in the beautiful chapel at St. Augustine’s Seminary in Toronto would be something other than the Missa Normative of 1970. Bishop Attila Miklósházy, S.J. was the main celebrant.

In an unheard of experimentation with the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the Mass was “concelebrated” by Bishop Miklósházy and at least eight (8) other priests — a practice only permitted in the Ordinary Form and unheard of in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The closest this Mass comes to concelebration is the ordination of a priest when the newly ordained is invited to assist in the Canon with the presiding Bishop. But this was not a concelebration as we understand it in the Ordinary Form—it was in fact the Bishop teaching the new priest to say the Mass.

Reports that the Mass would be celebrated have been known for a few weeks. In fact, it was made known ahead of time that the Mass would be celebrated versus populum. Perhaps, this could have been considered a valid alteration considering it is the Seminary and it would be helpful for the seminarians to view the rubrics. Yet, further investigation has revealed other serious liturgical abuses never anticipated by the motu proprio, Summorum Pontficum and as yet, unheard of in the blogosphere.

It seems that in addition to illicit concelebrating and facing the people the readings were in English. While this was anticipated in the motu proprio from an “approved translation” it is doubtful that Pope Benedict was referring to the New Revised Standard Version. [I don’t know what all that meant in Summorum Pontificum.  But the sensibilities of the congregation (in this case seminarians) ought to be respected.] One would assume that this would have at least been the translation in use in 1962, that of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.

It is also confirmed that Communion was received in the hand [This is not "wrong", in the sense that it is licit to do this.  But no one should be required.] and that a cone of silence has been ordered by the seminary rector, Monsignor A. Robert Nusca.  [Oh?]

 

There can be many things garbled or slightly distorted in reporting. 

I suppose more will come forth.

I people write me, I preserve anonymity.

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.

55 Responses to An alarming TLM at Toronto’s seminary

  1. John Polhamus says:

    Well…I’m not saying that this is the case but I think we have to expect that, despite objections of the progressives, as the re-integration of the SSPX draws nearer, there may be those who out of either spite or malicious adherence to their own liturgical tastes, will attempt to “experiment” with the Extraordinary Form and to move the traditional liturgy along at a false rate of evolution. I predict that this will be an unfortunate reaction of some. This MAY be a case of just such an approach. We must pray for those who are responsible.

  2. Makarios says:

    What is a “cone of silence”? It sounds like some kind of new-age Wiccan magic implement.

  3. paul says:

    Father this sounds like a novus ordo mass, I really don’t think that this was and EF mass.

  4. Mary says:

    I actually gasped out loud when I read “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite … “concelebrated.”” Say it ain’t so! I hope it is a false report.

  5. Well I will say there are worse abuses that can (and do..) happen in the ordinary form of the mass.

  6. Apart from the choice in translation (NRSV), I am unclear why concelebration of the priests with their bishop and the readings in English would constitute a serious “liturgical abuse.” Concelebration was part of the Roman liturgy very early on, and was dropped only later in the development of the Rite. It would seem that the “versus populum” would be more of an issue, would it not?

    I guess the term “abuse” really sounds more like an exaggeration to me. I have in mind clowns, liturgical dancing (sometimes by clowns), balloons and female “presiders.” The very fact that the Gregorian Mass was celebrated in a seminary in Toronto should be a point of great rejoicing, not complaining.

    And the goal as I understand it is NOT to bring back 1962, but to restore the modality of traditional worship to the Latin Church. Was that not largely accomplished here?

    Now if the hymns were taken out of the Gather Hymnal, on the other hand… :-)

  7. Joe says:

    I know they have very little Latin at St Augustine’s, including very little exposure to a Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, so I suspect this won’t happen again in a long time.

  8. Emilio III says:

    Makarios, the “cone of silence” was a device used in the old Get Smart television series whenever a highly secret conversation was taking place. It was supposed to prevent anyone outside the cone to hear what was spoken. Unfortunately it prevented the people inside from hearing themselves, so they stood very close together shouting at the top of their lungs trying to make themselves heard. People outside would have a better chance of understanding them than they themselves had.

    I imagine here it means a silly and ineffective attempt to keep something secret.

  9. I loved the Cone of silence. Especially the portable version. And the whole thing was this plexi glass bubble that was joined to another by a plexi glass tube. Pure genious LOL

    I suppose though, when you try to “surpress” something like this, you are doing just that, its a cone of silence. Definately using the portable version, that forces you to drag others along

  10. Dove says:

    This could not have been an Extraordinary form of the Mass.

  11. dominic1962 says:

    Yes, if this is true, it would constitute liturgical abuse. The rubrics of the ’62 MR have nothing to do with concelebration et al. If the justification in doing these things is based on what supposedly happened a thousand years ago, it would be precisely what Pope Pius XII condemned in Mediator Dei as archaicism.

    This is the same error committed by the Jansenist neo-Gallican liturgical school (aka, the ‘anti-liturgical’ heresy) in the production of their new books. Carting out the excuse of “purifying” the rites to restore what was done in the early days as a thinly veiled excuse for innovation.

    In my own opinion, if we are going to go back farther than ’62, we need not go back any farther than when the last of the revisions inspired by Bugnini are absent. If we want to bring back broad stoles and folded chasubles, great. If we want to do stuff because it was supposedly done in the Early Church-no thanks!

  12. Michael UK says:

    It is fairly standard practice, in Europe, for SSPX clergy to read both Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular.

    The previous Bishop of Lancaster, UK, was persuaded to Celebrate the TLM in Preston, but inserted the Propers of that day’s NOM!

    At a Mass in Nice, France, the priest Celebrated the TLM but with the insertion of the relevant NOM Readings. That church is close-by the SSPX church and the local Ordinary’s permission was that the timing should coincide with that of its neighbour.

    As an aside, my parish church has moved the SofP from within the Mass, to an introduction between congregants prior to the start of Mass.

  13. Carlos Palad says:

    “I actually gasped out loud when I read “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite … “concelebrated.”” Say it ain’t so! I hope it is a false report.”

    I don’t want to give details, but I’ve personally witnessed a “concelebrated” TLM. And, yes, I know what a TLM is.

  14. Carlos Palad says:

    “The previous Bishop of Lancaster, UK, was persuaded to Celebrate the TLM in Preston, but inserted the Propers of that day’s NOM!

    “At a Mass in Nice, France, the priest Celebrated the TLM but with the insertion of the relevant NOM Readings.”

    Re: NOM readings in the TLM, it was Augustin Cardinal Mayer who gave permission for this in his 1990 letter to the US bishops on the TLM (Protocol No. 500/90, see # 5 in that letter). If you ask me, Cardinal Mayer was a very good man, but I think this was a horrible
    idea; however,it wasn’t explicitly forbidden after 07-07-07 so I would guess that this practice is still licit for the TLM. Of course, I hate it and I would never serve a TLM in which this is done.

  15. Inqiusitor says:

    They occasionally concelebrate the EF at Fontgombault.

    It is wrong to assume that the indult to receive in the hand applies to the EF. Common sense dictates it does not. At the church I attend the priest makes it quite clear that communion is only to be received on the tongue, and refuses those who attempt to receive otherwise. But I see where the doubt arises, and I hope Rome will soon pronounce on this.

  16. Carlos Palad says:

    I believe that this blog reported not long ago that the TLM in Buenos Aires is
    now offered versus populum.

  17. Carlos Palad says:

    “But I see where the doubt arises, and I hope Rome will soon pronounce on
    this.”

    Please, NO!

  18. john hunwicke says:

    I agree that concelebration should not be illegally introduced into the EF where it is not present. But it is plain wrong to say that the concelebration of the neopresbyteroi in the Mass of their ordination is not really a concelebration. Centuries before Bugnini, manualists and reliable authoriies (such as Benedict XIV, de Sacrificio Missae, bk 3, chapter 16)said that it was. Putting their money where their mouth was, they added that a priest could accept a stipend for that Mass – yes, I repeat, I am talking about the period before the twerntieth century. Authorities can be found in H Davies Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol 3, pp 99-100. I don’t know who has invented the idea that ‘the bishop is just showing them how to say Mass’. It’s nonsense anyway because the neopresbyteroi are kneeling according to the old Pontifical; so if the bishop were just showing them how to say Mass, he would be doing a very bad job of it!

    I don’t think the cause of the ancient and venerable liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite is best served by inventing new and previously unheard of interpretations of it in order artificially to make it seem more different from the OF. The EF needs people who love it for its own sake and not because they think they can use it to rubbish anything and everything in the OF.

  19. Andrew, UK and sometimes Canada says:

    Perhaps the Order of Bishop Attila Miklósházy, S.J. explains something. It should be mentioned that he is NOT, NOT a bishop of the diocese. The ordinary is Archbishop Thomas Collins, a Benedict appointment, and a solid bishop who permitted the FSSP into Toronto where his predecessor did not, and preaches incredible sermons.

    As mentioned, the indult to receive Communion in the hand probably applies because I’m guessing it refers to the Roman Rite. It’s unlikely, however, that people familiar with the EF would adopt this manner of receiving. Perhaps many people were unfamiliar with the EF.

  20. gedsmk says:

    This is a very interesting case, and I think the seminary should give it more publicity rather than less. A video of it would be fascinating. This may be a form of “mutual enrichment”, taking what for some (though not necessarily for myself) might be the best of the ordinary form (facing the people, concelebration, vernacular, the right to receive Communion in the hand)but sticking with the 1962 prayers before the “Modernists” changed the texts. As for concelebration, it’s one solution to the “community Mass” dilemma; St Francis asked priests to sit with the “rest of the baptised”. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it. Overall, from a theological point of view, however, a lot of rethinking will be required.

  21. Magdalene says:

    Maybe it was just the Jesuit version???

  22. dcs says:

    This may be a form of “mutual enrichment”

    Of course we can’t be sure of what actually happened, but what was described in the original article hardly sounds “enriching.” I think by “mutual enrichment” the Holy Father probably had other things in mind (perhaps the plethora of new Prefaces found in the Novus ordo). In any case, it is not up to the individual celebrants of Mass, or even to the diocesan bishop, to decide which options will be “enriching” and which will not. Bishops are subject to the very same liturgical laws that ordinary priests are. Concelebration is simply not permitted in the older form of the Mass (except, as has already been pointed out, for ordinations). I am not at all certain that — given the various permissions in place — that the other things can be categorized as “abuses,” but if the purpose of this exercise is to teach seminarians how to celebrate the TLM, well … one wonders what their future congregations will think of Mass being celebrated this way.

  23. TNCath says:

    Sadly, but not surprisingly, I am not surprised about this. Last summer I attended what was touted as a “High Mass” in the Extraordinary Form in Fermoy, County Cork, Ireland. I made a special trip the day before from the Dublin airport to be there the next morning. I was very disappointed to see how poorly it was celebrated. There were elements of the Novus Ordo that were mingled with this Mass, most notably the singing of the Agnus Dei and a couple other ditties sung in English. It was a very strange experience.

  24. Maureen says:

    TNCath —

    It’s hard to say what’s abuse and what’s going back to local customs from long before Vatican II. There seems to have been a lot of local variety and a lot of permissions from the Vatican running around. And of course, in a lot of small local languages, there seems to have been a lot of vernacular Catholic Masses being said. (In Gaelic in the Hebrides in Scotland, for instance, and possibly in Brittany in Breton as well, unless I’m misinterpreting what I’ve read. It may be that only certain parts were in the vernacular.)

    In many ways, Vatican II and Trent were similar, in that the Council Fathers of both seem to have wanted everyone on the same page, with no more local variations. However, the outcomes seem to have been different, with Trent trying to disallow everything odd, and VII interpreted as meaning that huge amounts of options were permitted to everyone, in place of local customs only permitted for some. (But again, I could be misinterpreting this.)

  25. richardson says:

    taking Andrew to mean “Society of Jesus” rather than “of Melchisedek”, in line with Magdalene, I think this might have something to do with Bishop Attila’s being a Jesuit. He had a reputation amongst Jesuits as being a liturgical rigorist, so that should be all right. But to some extent he still feels that he knows best, that what he decides to do at a Liturgy is by that fact the correct thing to do. I’ve attended one or two other (OF) Liturgies he’s presided at, especially Hungarian funerals, and while they would be considered standard by most parishioners, one realizes that to some extent it depends on him. In other words I don’t mean that as a Jesuit he intends to do things other than as the Church requires (he is a very faithful Catholic), but that as a Jesuit he does think himself somewhat as the one on the spot who has to decide things for good order.

  26. seminarian says:

    Dear Father,
    I was at the Mass. Versus Populum (which is an option) was done due to the arrangement of the sanctuary, there is not much room in front of the Altar. The bishop is very old and somethings had to be altered according to his physical mobility. The last line about the ‘cone of silence’ seems to be ridiculous as i never heard about it and if there was such silence why is it on the internet? and what kind of person who is asked to be silent would disrespect their rector (who is kind and orthodox and was good enough to go to the trouble to ask for the EF to be offered) and blab to the whole world? (who would trust this person’s perspective if they have such an attitude) For the integrity of your blog i would recommend you take this post off since it does no service to the promotion of the EF and charity at the seminary. I think it was as step and a positive one, negativity will not help at all for the future. the motto of the seminary is ‘Solis Instar Sola Regent Caritas’, that article does not reflect our motto at all and is a negative exaggeration, I especially do not like the use of the bishop’s name or the rector’s name in this article that is not a very good article, it does not respect their names so please take this off your site if you can. I am very surprised someone wrote such garbage and had the idea to post it on the internet.
    thank-you kindly, In Corde Iesu,
    Seminarian

  27. CDN Canonist says:

    Concerning concelebration: The 1917 Code prohibited priests from concelebrating Mass except for presbyters and bishops at the Mass of their ordination (c. 803). Sacrosanctum concilium (nn. 55,57) derogated from this law. The 1983 Code, the current law of the Church, clearly permits concelebration (c. 902). Concelebrating Mass, therefore, is not an liturgical abuse. There is also a rite of concelebration which was promulgated in 1965 (Ritus servandus in concelebratione et Ritus Communionis sub utraque specie, 7 March 1965), for use with what we now refer to as the EF of the Msss.

    Concerning celebration facing the people: The Ritus servandus, which prefaced the 1962 Missale Romanum provided for the celebration of Mass in which the celebrant faced the people. See Ritus servanudus in celebratione Missae “V-De oratione”, n. 3. Of course, this was routinely done in the four major basilicas in Rome where the altars are free standing.

  28. Gravitas says:

    DON’T WORRY ABOUT THIS!!!

    This was NOT the Traditional Latin Mass so who cares?

    It was just a hybrid Mass that they want to label the TLM. Let them call it whatever they want — it wasn’t the traditional Mass.

    Whether the intended to distort the TLM or whether it was an honest mistake, it matters not, because the Mass they said was not the TLM.

  29. Joseph says:

    Seminarian,

    Where is “versus populum” an option according to the rubrics of the 1962 Missal? Nobody is doubting that the bishop is good and kind, that is not the issue. The issue is clearly one of proper liturgy. Was the mass concelebrated? If so, why? That is not a norm in the Extraordinary Form or the Roman Rite? Why not simply present the Mass as a Low Mass with one priest, it was really just that simple. It is obvious that there may be a desire not to publicize the situation and nobody is questioning the Rector’s orthodoxy. This is a matter of the liturgy and to monkey around with experimentations in a Seminary especially, with the Traditional Latin Mass is not helpful to anyone. Will these seminarians upon ordination now think that they can make up the Mass as they go along? Just has has been going on with the Ordinary Form for 40 years?

    How much offense has the person in the pew endured to the point where they are now lulled into thinking that it is all just normal to have creative, on-the-spot liturgy. How much offense has Our LORD had to endure.

    No, it must stop and it is the responsibility of every Catholic, lay, seminarian, deacon, priest, bishop.

    Do the Red, Say the Black in either form!

  30. “Yes, if this is true, it would constitute liturgical abuse. The rubrics of the ‘62 MR have nothing to do with concelebration et al. If the justification in doing these things is based on what supposedly happened a thousand years ago, it would be precisely what Pope Pius XII condemned in Mediator Dei as archaicism.”

    Dominic,

    I doubt that concelebration is a form of the “heresy” of archaism, for to say so would mean that practically the entire Latin Church – including the Pope himself – and the whole of Eastern Christendom are guilty of it.

    Concelebration in the Roman Rite is quite common. If I understand it correctly, is there not just one “Rite” in the Latin Church now, in its OF and EF? I do not get the impression that the intention of the Holy Father is to somehow treat the Ef and OF as hermetically sealed entities, but rather hopes that the EF serves as a counter balance and corrective to some of the silliness of the past 40 years in most quarters with the OF.

    Does that mean that any legitimate developments within the OF are entirely off-limits for the celebration of the EF? That is a question for Latin Church’s reigning patriarch (aka our Holy Father, the Pope). But until such questions are asked and answered, does that make concelebration by a bishop with his clergy an “abuse”? I hardly think so.

    Now, Pius XII is referring to the practice of indescriminately introducing ancient practices in an effort to “pristinize” the liturgy of the present. I do not see anything “indescriminate” about the use of concelebration in the Latin Rite. There is a proper theological premise for its use in the liturgy, particularly with one’s bishop.

    My goodness, if archaism was ever truly done with the liturgy of the Latin Church, you would have:

    – two-dimensional liturgical iconography devoid of all naturalism
    – leavened bread for the Eucharist
    – liturgical language in the vernacular
    – a married priesthood
    – concelebration
    – a proper order for the rites of initiation of children
    – infant communion

    All of which sound vaguely familiar to me… ;-)

    And what is to say that the attitude taken by some (but not all) in the restoration of the 1962 Missal is not itself done in a spirit of a form of archaism? As I alluded to before, the goal should not be to resore 1962 AD any more than it should be to restore 62 AD. The renewed practice of the Gregorian Rite is about a restoration of a traditional modality of sacred worship of the Holy Trinity to the Latin Church. The Liturgy is neither a time capsule nor a laboratory…but it IS both Sacred Tradition and the most prevalent exercise of the living teaching authority (the ordinary magisterium) of the bishops.

  31. CDN Canonist says:

    Joseph,

    You asked: where is “versus populum” an option according to the rubrics of the 1962 Missal. As I explained just a few posts above, the rubrics for the 1962 Missal provided for occasions when the celebrant faced the people:

    “If the altar faces the people the celebrant does not turn his back to the altar when saying Dominus vobiscum, Orate fratres, Ite, missa est, or when giving the blessing but having kissed the altar in the middle, then extending and joining his hands, as above, greets them and gives the blessing” (Ritus servandus, “5-De oratione,” n. 3).

    Although this wasn’t common, it’s not foreign to the celebration of the EF.

  32. Jon says:

    Thank you, “seminarian,” for throwing a bucket on the fire.

    I would ask everyone else about their implicit worry of Rome’s eventual acquiescence to such practices; do you seriously think that once the SSPX is regularized, Rome would risk re-schism by giving official sanction to any of these things? I highly doubt it.

    The Society will serve as the watchdog at the gate.

  33. GCC Catholic says:

    CDN Canonist:

    Re: concelebration: You yourself state that it is permitted by Sacrosanctum Concilium and exists in the Missale of 1964/65. This is not the Missale Romanum 1962 that is permitted for use by the Motu Proprio. Though the current law permits concelebration, the Missale gives no rubrically-acceptable vehicle with which to exercise that right, except in the cases of ordinations/consecrations that were permitted already.

    Re: versus populum: If I am understanding correctly, Ritus servanudus in celebratione Missae “V-De oratione”, n. 3. only refers to situations where the freestanding altar is facing true East. Since the orientation of many churches is not East-West, and since facing ad populum is currently associated predominately with the “turning of the altars” in the post-conciliar reform, the confusion that it would lead to should be taken into consideration. Out of pastoral sensitivity, one should err on the side of caution and face Liturgical East.

    In my opinion, though I am glad to see a seminary attempting Mass in the Extraordinary Form, this was poorly executed.

  34. GCC Catholic says:

    CDN Canonist:

    I believe your translation is incorrect.

    The Latin:

    Si altare sit ad orientem, versus populum,
    celebrans versa facie ad populum, non vertit hu-
    meros ad altare, cum dicturus est D6minus vobis-
    cum, Orate, fratres, Ite, missa est, vel daturus be-
    nedictionem; sed osculato altari in medio, ibi,
    expansis et iunctis manibus, ut supra, salutat po-
    pulum, et dat benedictionem.

    The English (only the parts that are relevant, because I need to get to class):

    “Si altare sit ad orientem” — If the altar is situated to the East.

    “ad populum” (seen later in the paragraph) is “to the people”

    I’ll let my fellow Latinists take a crack at it…
    (and of course, tell me if I am incorrect)

  35. sub axe australi says:

    Summorum Pontificum envisages the use of the Missal of Bd John XXIII, the “62” missal. Certain people would like to go earlier, e.g., to celebrate the “pre-restoration” Holy Week, etc. Others would like to go later, and use the “interim” missal. Fine. But then some folks, priests included, just take matters into their own hands, and start making whatever changes they like, doing what “makes sense” or “seems best” to them. Perhaps we should acquaint (or re-acquaint) ourselves with what St Alphonsus Liguori and other classic authorities in moral theology have to say about such a manner of proceeding.

  36. sub axe australi says:

    The “modality of traditional worship” in the Latin Church includes the Latin mindset, the attitudes that used to, and I believe still ought to, characterize the Western approach to the sacred Liturgy. I would respectfully suggest that Fr. Deacon Daniel does not discry abuse here precisely because his mindset is not the Latin one.

  37. CDN Canonist says:

    GCC Catholic,

    The translation is not my own; I borrowed it from http://www.sanctamissa.org. I was going to include only the Latin, but figured it would be inaccessible to some (most?). You need to read more than the first clause. My point is simple: a rubric is provided for the 1962 Missal for cases when celebrants faced versus populum. This occurred in a number of older churches in Rome, including the four major basilicas.

    How else could you interpret the rubric, and for what reason would it be necessary if not for this occasion?

  38. variously curious says:

    Perhaps this will become an organic development.

  39. AM says:

    Just a note, namely that the NRSV is the (basis of the) approved and recognitio’d English translation of the lectionary, in Canada. So if the readings are to be in the vernacular, that’s the translation that ought to be used.

  40. Ken says:

    Ah, it was only a matter of time. If this was indeed a valid traditional Latin Mass (and that seems to be in question) then it’s possibly a trend we could see in time. Priests who are not fans of the traditional liturgy will do things like this to divide and conquer. It’s a brilliant move, actually.

    We have seen several reform-of-the-reform priests begin this kind of movement, with mutiple novelties such as offertory processions, everyone singing or reciting the Pater Noster, music during the consecration and the near elimination of the audible role of the choir and altar server by having the congregation say and/or sing almost everything during Mass. This latest development is no surprise.

    This is where it gets messy, folks. With charity, those who know the liturgy inside and out need to identify these situations and root them out. Just like when Saint Thomas Aquinas says it’s better to leave the Church for a while and come back when you’re ready, it is also better to have no Mass in Toronto until it is done correctly. We can wait, pray and do it right eventually. Do not let nonsense such as the above replace the traditional Latin Mass.

  41. Joseph says:

    AM,

    The NRSV is for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite as it
    follows a different calendar. The fact is, Rome has not
    determined which “translation” should be used.

    Therefore, as sub axe australi noted earlier about “mindset”
    the NRSV seems to be tinkering.

  42. “The “modality of traditional worship” in the Latin Church includes the Latin mindset, the attitudes that used to, and I believe still ought to, characterize the Western approach to the sacred Liturgy. I would respectfully suggest that Fr. Deacon Daniel does not discry abuse here precisely because his mindset is not the Latin one.”

    Well said, sub axe australi. I believe in some respects that you are correct!

    But I am certainly very sympathetic to traditional forms of worship and faith in both East and West.

    Clearly the West adopted a very limited practice of concelebration, which I can only surmise, also reflected in an some respects shaped her view of the ministry of the priesthood. That such a practice continued in the ordination rite is significant and indicates a decisive point of reference for the priest and his ministry (the exercise of his sacerdotal service has its origins in the sacerdotal service of his bishop who presides at every liturgy).

    I am curious, though, about the debates concerning a restored practice of concelebration preceding and following the Council, until permission was granted to implement this practice. Was explicit reference made to the Eastern Churches?Can it be said that this is exclusively an “Eastern” view, or is there a venerable precedent that occured in the West, specifically within the Roman Rite?

    I believe the fact that the event mentioned above was done by a bishop with his priests is doubly significant. First of all, a bishop concelebrating with his priestly sons (and deacons) is the fullest manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ. Even a cursory read of the Church fathers makes this clear. Secondly, since these priests never concelebrated with their bishop according to the ancient rite at their ordinations, might this not be a “sealing” of the Extraordinary Form in his local church by a bishop with his priestly sons?

    I might be more sympathetic to the concerns expressed here if it was simply a couple of priests on their own…but this is a bishop and his presbyters concelebrating. I think the cries of “abuse! abuse!” might be missing a more positive aspect to this event.

  43. frv says:

    Summorum Pontificum is clear about celebrating according to the calendar for each form; one would presume that the two not be intermingled. That being said, the Mass in the EF calendar for Jan 28 was for St. Peter Nolasco; the one celebrated at the seminary was in accord with the OF calendar for the memorial of St. Thomas Aquinas, but celebrated in the EF. Any comments on this?

  44. LCB says:

    If we are to have organic continuity with the past, we must first return to the moment in time when we broke with the past. Liturgically, that is largely represented by the imposition of the NO.

    Is there room for organic growth, even in Mass of All Ages? Yes, there is. But first we must have some degree of continuity with the past. This mass does not represent continuity with the past, but seems to represent the same attitude of unlawful innovations being imposed upon the People of God.

    Is there room for a shift to pure vernacular readings in the Gregorian Rite? Yes, there is. But first we must have some degree of continuity with the venerable tradition of the readings being purely in Latin (with re-readings in the vernacular). We can go down the line on most all of these matters.

    Is there room for Communion in the Hand? I say no. That abomination must be done away with.

  45. GCC Catholic says:

    CDN Canonist:

    I can’t argue that you are correct that the precedent is there. However, I doubt either of us know the orientation of said particular altar. Even if we did, one would think, because of the nature of versus populum vs. ad Deum (facing liturgical East, regardless of geography) worship and how each has become attached, mostly wrongly, to a particular form of the Rite, it would have been appropriate to make it clear as to why the Mass was being celebrated versus populum. I hope this happened here.

  46. GCC Catholic says:

    LCB, I think you hit it on the head. Not only is there room for organic growth in the Mass of All Ages, but the directives of the Council necessitate them. Unfortunately, I think there are still too many people (clergy especially) who wish to innovate (without considering why we have the rubrics we do) and too many people who don’t even want change through organic development. Until there are more people in the middle, who would only seek organic growth in continuity, attempts to drive change in the EF will only lead to mistrust.

    My personal opinion for this case is that the seminarians would have been better served by an EF Mass celebrated by one priest in the presence of the Bishop. (The remaining priests could have attended in choir.) I believe that is an option the EF provides and that it might have been preferable option given the bishop’s health issues as mentioned by seminarian.

  47. Matthias says:

    New Advent says that concelebration was the latin practice all the way at least up till the 9th century. The NRSV is probably better then the NAB but I don’t own a NRSV to compare to be honest. Communion in the hand, I agree, is a complete abuse, even within the OF and knowing that the versus populum position has invaded the TLM is quite depressing : (

    “Concelebration

    Concelebration is the rite by which several priests say Mass together, all consecrating the same bread and wine. It was once common in both East and West. As late as the ninth century priests stood around their bishop and “consented to his sacrifice” (Corp. Jur. Can., Decr. Grat., Pars III, dist. I, cap. 59). The rite of Concelebration was modified at Rome (perhaps in the time of Pope Zephyrinus, 202-218) so that each priest should consecrate a separate host (the deacons holding these in patens or corporals); but they all consecrated the same chalice (“Ordo Rom. I”, 48; see also Dechusne, “Liber Pont.”, I, 139 and 246). In the sixth century this rite was observed on all station days; by the eighth century it remained only for the greatest feasts, Easter, Christmas, Whitsunday, and St. Peter (“Ordo Rom. I”, 48; Duchesne, “Origines”, 167). On other days the priests assisted but did not concelebrate. Innocent III (1198-1216) says that in his time the cardinals concelebrate with the pope on certain feasts (De Saer. Altar. Myst. in Migne, P.L., CCXVII, IV, 25). Durandus, who denied the possibility of such a rite (Rationale Div. Off., IV, d. xiii, q. 3) is refuted by Cardinal Bona (Rer. Liturg., I, xviii, 9). St. Thomas defends its theological correctness (Summa Theol., III:82:2).” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04190a.htm

  48. Greg Smisek says:

    frv said: “the Mass in the EF calendar for Jan 28 was for St. Peter Nolasco; the one celebrated at the seminary was in accord with the OF calendar for the memorial of St. Thomas Aquinas, but celebrated in the EF. Any comments on this?”

    The use of the OF calendar for EF Masses has been dealt with before on WDTPRS. If I am up to date, the state of the question is that between the Ecclesia Dei indult and Summorum Pontificum, PCED gave permission, even broadly, to celebrate an EF Mass for a feast listed that day in the OF calendar. PCED has not, as far as I know, clarified whether this still holds post-Summorum Pontificum. In any case, this seminary Mass in honor of St. Thomas Aquinas could also have been treated as a Votive Mass on Certain Special Occasions (General Rubrics of the Roman Missal, nn. 370-372).

    As for the form of the Mass, was it a Pontifical Mass, celebrated according to the Caeremoniale Episcoporum? If not, that would seem to be the greater oddity.

  49. Toronto Sacristan says:

    Ok…I find all this rather confusing and disturbing?

    “Seminarian” you mentioned it was a versus populum mass because of the lack of space in front of the chapel’s Altar? I find this rather a weak argument at best considering the size of the seminaries sanctuary in comparison with that of Holy Family where the Oratorian Fathers manage quite well in a smaller space when they use the 1962 missal for both their daily low and the odd high mass.

    Based on the information reported…it sounds more like a Latin Mass celebrated according to the 1970 Missal, rather then that of the 1962 Missal.

    “Say the black, do the Red!”

  50. sub axe australi says:

    Fr. Deacon Daniel:

    First, I think it is important to recognize that the term “concelebration” can cover different realities. I would argue that there is no clear evidence of sacramental concelebration, i.e., of co-consecration of the holy Eucharist, in the Latin liturgy until the thirteenth century. This form of concelebration seems to me to be a very late and typically medieval development.

    There are other kinds of concelebration. The fact that you mention concelebrant deacons shows that you do not conceive of concelebration as mere co-consecration. One of the problems today is that sacramental concelebration has suppressed the other traditional forms of concelebration in the Latin Church, and even distorted the image of the bishop surrounded by his priestly college.

    When, if at all, do we see a bishop surrounded by his priestly college in his cathedral church? Only at sacramentally concelebrated Masses. Pontifical vespers with the clergy in choir? Nope. Pontifical Mass with clergy in choir? Never. Yet this is also concelebration, the abiding form of concelebration in the West.

    Related to this is the fact that the chasuble came to be an exclusively eucharistic vestment. As I understand it, it used to be worn by priests not just when they celebrated sacramentally, but generally when they assisted as members of the priestly college. It was even worn at pontifical vespers, and the rubrics probably still envisage this possibility.

    With regard to priestly ordination, it is perhaps relevant to recall that the supplementary rites were not uniform in the West until a fairly late date. It is quite possible that the sacramental concelebration of the newly ordained was not widespread until the ceremonial became standardized.

  51. Charivari Rob says:

    By the way, regarding the ‘cone of silence’… Might it have simply been a typo?

    The person who wrote the article might have been trying to say that the seminary rector ordered adherence to some code of silence.

  52. dominic1962 says:

    Fr. Deacon Daniel,

    I’m quoting Dom Gueranger in reference to the Jansenists and saying that if something resembles that debacle, we shouldn’t go down the same path.

    Is concelebration heretical? No. Did it fall out of use in the Western Church? Yes. Bringing it back and reinserting it into the present day completely out of its element was not a restoration but an innovation. Same thing applies to things like Communion in the hand.

    As a liturgical abuse, it most certainly is one in the EF as the MP specifically states that the rubrics of the two Masses are not to be mixed. The books in force in 1962 (not to mention the previous 500 yrs. or so) have no place for concelebration and thus it simply cannot be done. At a pontifical Mass, the bishop celebrates, other clerics in major orders perform the roles of assistant priest, deacon, subdeacon, etc. but there are no concelebrants. Other clerics who are not performing these duties sit in choir. This is the way it should be.

    Furthermore, receiving Communion from your bishop is more of a sign of Communion with him and thus one’s brother priests anyway. The traditional Chrism Mass was a better sign of unity than trying to pack as many priests as possible into the sanctuary swathed in the diocesean issued polyester poncho. Plus, its kind of hard to mean “This is my Body” when “this” is really “that, over there on the altar”.

    Personal opinion, but I think the reason concelebration has such a following in the Latin Church has less to do with the theological issues than with laziness and not wanting to wear a cassock to sit in choir.

    As to Mediator Dei, in sections 62-64 say nothing about “indiscriminate”. It does condemn the effort to “purify” the liturgy as if what we have “now” (1947) was the result of accretions built up over the years. He gave a few examples of how the liturgical Modernists were acting in trying to “restore” the altar to its primitive table form or get rid of black from the liturgical colors though these certainly are not the only issues. He also attributes this improper zeal to the same source I do-the Jansenists as typified by those at the pseudo-Synod of Pistoia.

  53. Carlos Palad says:

    “We have seen several reform-of-the-reform priests begin this kind of movement, with mutiple novelties such as offertory processions, everyone singing or reciting the Pater Noster, music during the consecration and the near elimination of the audible role of the choir and altar server by having the congregation say and/or sing almost everything during Mass…”

    Offertory procession — was already being done in many places in the 1940’s. I have
    pictures of an offertory procession from 1948.

    Everyone singing or reciting the Pater — was permitted by the PCED in the 1990’s

    Singing during the consecration — ok, this is an abuse. However, it was actually
    traditional in many places to play the organ during the Elevations and to sing
    a motet afterwards

    Having the congregation sing almost everything — this is the common practice
    outside the Anglophone world

    Please, if you don’t like something, say that you don’t like it, period. But
    don’t condemn something simply because you don’t like it.

  54. CDN Canonist says:

    dominic1962,

    Your comment: “The books in force in 1962 (not to mention the previous 500 yrs. or so) have no place for concelebration and thus it simply cannot be done.”

    This is simply inaccurate. According the earlier Pontificale Romanum, a priest would concelebrate with the bishop at his ordination Mass.

  55. Dominic,

    You wrote:

    “Personal opinion, but I think the reason concelebration has such a following in the Latin Church has less to do with the theological issues than with laziness and not wanting to wear a cassock to sit in choir.”

    Can you expound upon this? How is concelebration a fruit of “laziness”? The connection is not immediately – or even remotely – obvious to me…

    “At a pontifical Mass, the bishop celebrates, other clerics in major orders perform the roles of assistant priest, deacon, subdeacon, etc. but there are no concelebrants. Other clerics who are not performing these duties sit in choir. This is the way it should be.”

    The latter point is debatable, but it is certainly your position. I think sub axe australi’s point about is broader understanding of concelebration is an interesting one, especially speaking as a deacon who “concelebrates” regularly which does not obviously include co-consecration. Concelebration would thus extend to those in Minor Orders or anyone serving on the altar for that matter whose role it is to serve or exercise directly the sacerdotal ministry.

    A further point which may take us quite far afield is the essential role of the deacon in concelebration. A good friend who is a deacon told me recently that his priest told him recently that if another priest is concelebrating, they do not need a deacon to serve. This obviously betrays a complete – and not altogether uncommon – lack of understanding of the diaconate and the proper role of the deacon in the Mass.

    “The traditional Chrism Mass was a better sign of unity than trying to pack as many priests as possible into the sanctuary swathed in the diocesean issued polyester poncho. Plus, its kind of hard to mean “This is my Body” when “this” is really “that, over there on the altar”.”

    Co-consecration by bishops and priests is, though, a legitimate form of concelebration within the Mass of the Latin Church. Although I think your description of the worst examples of concelebration is probably quite accurate, it does not reflect the best examples I have seen. But somehow 50 or 100 priests co-consecrating strikes me as excessive. I think a better approach would be to select a few priests to co-consecrate, while the rest concelebrate, as you say, in choir.

    The enormous co-consecrations that take place at Pontifical liturgies sometimes just seem so over the top. I would hope that there could be a recovery of the sense of concelebration in the Latin Church that sub axe australi alludes to.