Archbp. Burke on altar girls and EMCHs in the Extraordinary Form

I picked up from Il blog degli amici di Papa Ratzinger that H.E. Most Rev. Raymond Burke (Prefect of the Ap. Segnatura) wrote a preface to a canonical study in German of Summorum Pontificum by Fr. Gero P. Weishaupt.

In his preface, Archbp. Burke says, inter alia, that neither altar girls nor Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are admissible in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite because the integrity of the Rite must be respected.

And as I was writing those words, I had another signal that NLM posted a rough English translation of the German original of Archbp. Burke’s preface.  The original text is available on the blog Summorum Pontificum.  My emphases.  Comments will follow.

 

In the second chapter of his commentary, Weishaupt answers a number of practical issues that arise regarding the implementation of Summorum Pontificum  and result from recent changes to the discipline of the celebration of the sacraments, such as e.g. those regarding female altar servers or lay people who perform the ministry of lecturers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. To answer these questions , the commentary correctly applies two general canonical principles.

The first principle requires that liturgical norms, which were in force in 1962, are to be diligently observed for the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, for these norms protect the integrity of the Roman rite as contained in the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. The second principle states that the subsequent liturgical discipline is only to be introduced in the Extraordinary Form, if this discipline affects a right of the faithful, which follows directly from the sacrament of baptism and serves the eternal salvation of their souls.

The application of these two principles to the cases mentioned leads to the conclusion that neither the service at the altar by persons of the female sex nor the exercise of the lay ministries of lecturer or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion belong to the basic rights of the baptized. Therefore, these recent developments, out of respect for the integrity of the liturgical discipline as contained in the Missale Romanum of 1962, are not to be introduced into the Extraordinary Form of the Roman rite. The commentary presents here in an impressive manner that the mutual enrichment of both forms of the Roman rite is only possible if discipline peculiar to each of the two forms is accordingly carefully observed.

A few comments.

 

  • This is not an official document.  It is a preface by an official of the Holy See to a book which is a commentary by a writer who is not an official of the Holy See.  The preface has no legal force.
  • Archbp. Burke is a distinguished canonist who also knows inside and out the older, Extraordinary Form because he has been so open to it and has often been celebrant for liturgies in the traditional form.  He knows the logic of the rite from within and not as some onlooker.
  • Archbp. Burke was consulted about the text of Summorum Pontificum before its release.  He knows more than a little about its genesis and intention.
  • As a canonist, Archbp. Burke understands the rights of the baptized from the point of view of the Church’s law.
  • He did not speak in that excerpt about Communion in the Hand in the older, Extraordinary Rite.
  • He also did not speak about "straw subdeacons".

His dictis

  1. It is not a right of the faithful for the sake of their salvation, that they be allowed to serve at Mass or to act as an EMCH.
  2. Since reception of Holy Communion – and the manner of Its reception – comes far closer to the issue of the salvation of the baptized, that might be a stickier issue.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is not a manner that touches on the salvation of the baptized to be permitted to receive on the hand when clearly it is contrary to the Church’s normative way of receiving.  Remember that permission to receive in the hand is actually an exception.
  3. I have held (pace Burke) that Summorum Pontificum did not in fact revive the laws that were in force in 1962, thus creating a parallel set of laws.  Was I wrong?
  4. Also, if there is to be such a strict separation of 1962 and 1970/2002, is mutual enrichment possible insofar as rites are concerned?
  5. Or, and this is where I have put all my stress over the last few years, does it have more to do with ars celebrandi?

 

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Archbp. Burke on altar girls and EMCHs in the Extraordinary Form

  1. Andy Milam says:

    Fr. Z,

    Can you expound on how this would/would not effect the role of “straw subdeacon?” I am of the opinion that it would have no effect whatsoever on a straw, but there are some who are questioning it.

    Thanks!

  2. LucasC says:

    Fr.,
    I’d like to know if atending a Sunday Extraordinary Form Mass celebrated on a Saturday at 3:00 p.m. fullfils my Sunday obligation.

    Thanks.

  3. Andrew says:

    Fr. Z:

    I hope my comment does not increase your headache, and I pray that you feel better soon, but:

    To your number 4. above (if there is to be such a strict separation of 1962 and 1970/2002, is mutual enrichment possible insofar as rites are concerned?)

    What is this ”mutual enrichment”? I think it is a vague concept that carries with it more questions than answers. Is “mutual enrichment” a code language for blending the two forms until a third one emerges? If that’s what it is, I am hopeful that no such “enrichment” is possible.

  4. Joshua08 says:

    Lucas,

    While I am pretty sure that a Sunday Mass may not be anticipated so early on Saturday, I believe any Mass after 12 probably fulfills your obligation

    See Ed Peters

    http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/11/time-period-for-fulfilling-sunday.html

    Now the Canon Law Society of America’s Commentary holds that only Masses after 4 count. Ed Peters hold 12 pm, and some hold 2 pm.

  5. mgalexander says:

    I hope that the Holy Father creates Mons. Burke a cardinal soon.

  6. ies0716 says:

    Based on what I’ve read of Fr. Z, I think that “mutual enrichment” is a somewhat PC way of saying “one-way enrichment from the EF to the OF.” I don’t see what possible “enrichment” that a manufactured rite less than 50 years old can provide to a Mass that is the fruit of nearly 2000 years of growth and development under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

  7. Also, if there is to be such a strict separation of 1962 and 1970/2002, is mutual enrichment possible insofar as rites are concerned?

    Yeah, like Andrew, I question how much enrichment can go on from the Novus Ordo to the Extraordinary Rite. I see more of a need to protect the older rite from modernist tinkerers. The one advantage that putting the older rite in mothballs had was precisely that it was protected from nutjob mangling.

    One change I can think of that might be advantageous would be an increase in the variety of epistles and Gospels in the older rite — which, if memory serves, was a reform Vatican II actually called for.

  8. LucasC says:

    Joshua…It’s taht this is the only hour available for the celebration of the extraordinary form. My doubt is is this regulation you mentioned apllies to the extraordinary form.

  9. LucasC says:

    …in my diocese, at least. Detail: I live in Brazil.

  10. Henry Edwards says:

    Andrew: “What is this ”mutual enrichment”?

    I don’t have a general answer, but perhaps a particular example.

    After attending an EF Mass each weekday morning for the past couple of months or more, I decided to pass it up this week and attend a daily OF Mass each morning (and thereby keep current my ecumenical creds).

    Which I have now done the past three mornings, in my typical suburban round-church parish. I have observed nothing to which I think a reasonable person would complain.

    Confiteor and Roman Canon used each day by priest who processed in wearing Roman vestments and carrying veiled chalice topped by burse. Paten-wielding male servers in surplice and cassock. No extraneous remarks or announcements of any sort, nothing said but what’s written in black. Greek Kyrie, Latin Sanctus and Agnus Dei. Lots of reception on the tongue, some kneeling on kneelers up front. No hand-holding. Incense for the feast yesterday.

    Just a few years ago, before Summorum Pontificum, I don’t recall seeing a single one of these things, certainly not frequently, in this same parish church. Is this “mutual enrichment”? Works for me.

  11. Joshua08 says:

    Lucas,

    As far as the Sunday obligation goes, any Mass in any Catholic rite fulfills the obligation either on Sunday or the evening before. If by evening is meant after 12, as Ed Peters holds, then that would apply to any Mass whatsoever in any rite or form period. So an EF wedding Mass at 2 pm would count.

    It is another question whether it is licit to use the Sunday Mass text that early on Saturday. Seeing as Christus Dominus in the 1950′s already allowed Masses of anticipation as early as 4 o’clock there is no doubt that even with the EF Sunday Masses and those of certain feasts may be celebrated the evening prior. That was simply the case before 1962 (though such permission rested on individual dioceses until 1983). So at “worst” a Sunday EF celebrated at 3pm on Saturday is illicit because it is too early to anticipate those texts, but your Mass obligation would be fulfilled anyways, just as it would be if it were a wedding or funeral Mass (at least assuming that a 12 or 2 pm limit is believed in good faith)

  12. PS says:

    Particularly intriguing is the bit about the 1962 laws being revived. I’m not disputing Abp. Burke’s take on it – as you say, he’s much more versed on the issue than most of us – but it is surprising. What we’ve been hearing consistently from a lot of traditionally-minded Catholic commentators is that SP is not meant as a break with VII, etc, that it wasn’t “turning the clock back to 1962″, etc. I could have sworn that the Pope himself said something to this effect.

  13. Henry Edwards says:

    “… ministry of lecturers

    Rough English translation means this is really lectors?

  14. HighMass says:

    I have great Respect for His Grace! He is not afraid to speak up!
    Boy watch the progressives come after this one! I am with mgalexander, Hopefully His Grace will receive the red hat!

  15. Geoffrey says:

    “Yeah, like Andrew, I question how much enrichment can go on from the Novus Ordo to the Extraordinary Rite.”

    Doing what Vatican II really wanted would be a start; expanded lectionary, more proper prefaces, etc.

    One thing I love about the Mass in the Ordinary Form in Latin is that all chant the Lord’s Prayer. Why should this not be done in the Extraordinary Form?

  16. kgurries says:

    I don’t think communion in the hand can be considered a matter of salvation or a “right of the baptized” since it was not widely practiced until recently. Naturally, that would mean that the rights of the baptized were “denied” for centuries! I think these principles recalled by Archbishop Burke will help clear up a lot of confusion on these issues.

  17. Henry Edwards says:

    Geoffrey: One thing I love about the Mass in the Ordinary Form in Latin is that all chant the Lord’s Prayer. Why should this not be done in the Extraordinary Form?

    This is already being done at EF high Masses in some places, and statements from the PCED have said it’s ok. But likely this is a result of the OF experience of EF attenders, it which case it would be an example of “mutual enrichment” in the OF to EF direction. (Setting aside the question of whether this is an actual “enrichment”.)

    Perhaps similarly for the participation nowadays in chanting the Ordinary (Gloria and Credo) and responses, for instance. In my experience, most EF Masses today are much more participative than the average in pre-Vatican II days. The standard quip is that Vatican II has done the EF more good than the OF. More “enrichment”?

  18. AnAmericanMother says:

    Henry Edwards,

    I think it’s obvious that the OF is going to benefit the most, since it’s been re-connected with history. A lot of the benefit is going to be in attitude and experience, not easily quantifiable but noticeable.

    Our parish had to rebuild our small chapel for daily Mass, small weddings, etc. (the building was sliding down the hill). While our main church is quite traditional, the chapel is even more so — for example the tabernacle is front and center, beautifully decorated and housed. And our young priests are very much in favor of Latin and support it at every opportunity.

    I hope the EF doesn’t change in form, but attitude and experience may be influenced. Perhaps the somewhat insular “us against the world” mindset may moderate a bit as the climate becomes friendlier. Hope so. I was scared to death when we visited the EF parish here . . . of course we were merely inquiring High Church Episcopalians then. I didn’t come without an introduction – knew several people in the parish including the choir director (both my daughter and I have sung under him elsewhere) but the welcome was not warm.

  19. irishgirl says:

    Yes-I hope that Archbishop Burke is made a Cardinal very soon!

    (I just watched on EWTN the Installation Mass for the new Bishop of LaCrosse, Wisconsin-Archbishop Burke was present at it)

  20. Jerry says:

    @Joshua08 – “As far as the Sunday obligation goes, any Mass in any Catholic rite fulfills the obligation either on Sunday or the evening before. If by evening is meant after 12, as Ed Peters holds”

    The relevant canon reads:

    Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself _or in the evening of the preceding day_ satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

    Unfortunately Dr. Peters didn’t explain how he concluded that “evening” can be interpreted as any time after noon. The author of the discussion in the CLSA Commentary states the earliest time is 4:00 PM, which seems more reasonable than noon or 2 PM.

  21. TJerome says:

    “I think it’s obvious that the OF is going to benefit the most, since it’s been re-connected with history” ????

    What does this mean? A 40 year made up Rite by committee has the same benefit as one which existed for almost 1700 years? Please explain.

  22. C. says:

    3. I have held (pace Burke) that Summorum Pontificum did not in fact revive the laws that were in force in 1962, thus creating a parallel set of laws. Was I wrong?

    I think, rather than a set of laws, there is only one extraordinary law, the law of the Form itself.

    We must remember that the Roman Church is governed by a monarchical system, and all powers–executive, legislative and judicial–are united in one person. The Holy Father wants the old Form back. It is not to be presumed that he meant a modified version of the old Form. The intent of the absolute monarch is more important in interpreting law than the textual provisions of any “basic law” he himself may establish, because he cannot bind himself without creating a constitutional monarchy, and the only constitutional limitations on the Holy Father are those imposed from Above.

    I would go further than Fr. Weishaupt and ask whether there is any reason why antecedent liturgical discipline (i.e., pre-1962) could be said to be prohibited if it would serve the eternal salvation of souls (let alone if it would protect the integrity of the Roman Rite), but “subsequent liturgical discipline” might be allowed for the same purpose. But I didn’t read the whole thing. Maybe the canonist has some reason why a priest seeking the salvation of souls might be liturgically limited to looking “forward” in “time”.

  23. AnAmericanMother says:

    TJerome,

    I think you have misunderstood completely. I was using ‘benefit’ as a transitive verb, I believe the original phrase was ‘mutual enrichment’ — in other words, the rites will benefit from one another. In my opinion, the OF will benefit from the increased exposure and approval of the EF because that will tend to increase solemnity, say the black, do the red, etc. etc. as well as decrease incidents of abuse.

    I attend an OF parish where the benefits are being seen. And I think it’s neither fair nor accurate to condemn the OF as a “made up rite”. Dumbed down, pedestrian language I will grant you, but the Mass is valid and many ‘worship in spirit and in truth’ with that rite.

  24. TJerome says:

    AnAmericanMother, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. I learned that the OF was a made up Rite created by Committee by Benedict XVI. My mistake.

  25. Mitchell NY says:

    Perhaps when SP was promulgated the intention was not to go back to all the laws in force in 1962. However, it may just be that things have changed since then. The thought may have prevailed that trying to issue answers to questions on a case by case basis proved more complicated that simply observing the laws in force in 1962 and referring all questions or attempted deviations from those laws to what has already been established. It may prove more beneficial and less confusing to all. That may be the reason for the delay of the Clarification letter, original thought may be changing organically. As someone who attends the EF Mass, my only thought that I think could be a beneficial benefit from the NO would be the suppression of the sotto voice. I know I may get bashed for this but something, according to the Vat II Council has to give. The rite was in need of revision according to the Council Fathers. After being deprived for 40 years of the EF Mass this is one area where it is difficult to follow along in the Missal when not schooled in Latin. With different Priests weekly and the changing modes and speeds of them can be quite disorienting when you can not hear anything. More of an obstacle than the Latin itself. I once brought someone with me to Mass, gave them a Missal and explained that you could follow the Latin and read the side by side English translation. It proved impossible and that was the one put off for that individual. I do think sotto voice is important in retaining mystery but the allowance for audible prayers would be of great advantage after what has happened at this point in time. (Tridentine Suppression). And it is certainly more beneficial and tolerable in a tangible sense than Communion in the hand, lots of vernacular throughout, or the deletion of prayers. If something has to give, I think this would be easiest to absorb and could be considered enrichment from the NO experience. My 2 cents.

  26. C. says:

    Mitchell NY, it sounds like you want another Reform. The last one was quite painful and prolonged. I suggest that you make do with the one you have.

  27. C. says:

    One thing I love about the Mass in the Ordinary Form in Latin is that all chant the Lord’s Prayer. Why should this not be done in the Extraordinary Form?

    Because it’s an old tradition, written into the Missal itself, that the people only chant the “Sed libera nos” part at Mass, and as Catholics we obey tradition rather than our own desires to sing out. When the priest chants the Pater alone (on our behalf), we the faithful take the posture of the Apostles when they first heard the Pater from Our Lord.

    If a custom exists in some place for everyone to chant the Pater at the EF, that can continue. There is no strict suppression. But don’t introduce it of your own accord.

    If you really feel called to chant the Pater, perhaps you are called to the priesthood. And if you’re married, perhaps you’re called to chant the Rosary.

  28. Supertradmum says:

    Lucas,

    As to the times of the anticipatory Mass, I do know that in the Byzantine Church, we had Vespers before 5 o’clock Mass. So, I think I can assume that in the Latin Rite, that the anticipatory Mass should be at or shortly after when Vespers would have occurred. Therefore, 4 o’clock would be the earliest a Latin Rite Mass could be celebrated and be the anticipatory Mass.

    Anything earlier, say at 12 or 2, would not be considered being offered or celebrated on the next day, as liturgically, the day begins at Vespers. This would or should also apply to late Masses on Sunday, but there are many aberrations, especially in Catholic college chaplaincies, which have Masses at 8, or even 10 on Sunday night. If you just think of the liturgical day as being vespers to vespers, you can figure out if the Mass fulfills your obligation. I would like to see some documentation on this.

  29. Supertradmum says:

    PS I sincerely hope Archbishop Burke writes more about this, as the document brings up as many questions as it seems to answer, especially with the laws re. the 1962 date.

  30. Geoffrey says:

    “If a custom exists in some place for everyone to chant the Pater at the EF, that can continue. There is no strict suppression. But don’t introduce it of your own accord.”

    Of course not. I believe firmly in saying the black, doing the red.

    “If you really feel called to chant the Pater, perhaps you are called to the priesthood. And if you’re married, perhaps you’re called to chant the Rosary.”

    I think a vocation to the priesthood has to involve a lot more than that! And if I “really feel called to chant the Pater”, I could simply attend the Ordinary Form of Mass in Latin… sadly, very hard to find! And sometimes I do chant the Lord’s Prayer–when praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private recitation as a layman.

  31. Supertradmum says:

    The Latin NO is much more common in England. Every parish I attended had at least one every week, as a regularly scheduled Mass.

  32. Geoffrey says:

    Supertradmum:

    I wonder why this is? I really wish that was the case in the US!

  33. Joshua08 says:

    Supertradmum, the time in which the liturgy for Sunday can be celebrated is another question entirely (and for that matter read the De Calendario of the Missal….liturgical days are midnight to midnight iirc). The Mass can be a requiem Mass, a nuptial Mass. It can be a votive Mass, the Mass for the Saturday. Doesn´t matter one bit. A priest can celebrate a Mass of our Lady on Saturday at 8 pm Saturday, and even though it wasn´t the Sunday’s liturgy it counts for the obligation. So you are confusing two issues

    Dr. Ed Peters is a Doctor of Canon Law. A consultor in fact to Rome. He may be wrong or right. I don´t know. But his opinion carries a lot more weight than any argument I can muster, and I advise actually reading it

    But since he isn´t here, I will repeat my understanding, which is an amateur’s. The word in the canon is vesperum. The general principle of anticipating obligations comes into play. How early can Vespers be anticipated? 12 or 2 is the traditional debate. (heck Noon comes from None, which is actually 3 o’clock…anticipating hours has a millenium rich tradition) For instance, Fr. Jone relates as a universally agreed consensus that any hour may be anticipated after 2 o’clock. And if one reads any old moral theology manual, liturgical manual (like Gueranger) one runs into the custom of says vespers a little before or at noon, starting with the Saturday after Ash Wednesday. The anticipation of the hour to even noon is very ancient, and a sign of that is that it for not begin the Tuesday before Ash Wednesday, or Ash Wednesday, but with the 1st Vespers of the First Sunday of Lent which was the original first day of Lent (Ash Wednesday is a much more recent beginning date, instituted to make the fast (Mon-Sat) 40 days exactly–which if you count the Triduum, as well formerly done, is true)

    Now the CSLA commentary bases itself on Christus Dominus, but that is dubious. While that document is the first to allow anticipatory Masses, it is no longer in force. It stated

    Rule VI. If the circumstance calls for it as necessary, We grant to the local Ordinaries the right to permit the celebration of Mass in the evening, as we said, but in such wise that the Mass shall not begin before four o’clock in the afternoon, on holy days of obligation still observed, on those which formerly were observed, on the first Friday of every month, and also on those days on which solemn celebrations are held with a large attendance, and also, in addition to these days, on one day a week; with the requirement that the priest observe a fast of three hours from solid food and alcoholic beverages, and of one hour from non-alcoholic beverages. At these Masses the faithful may approach the Holy Table, observing the same rule as regards the Eucharistic fast, the presumption of Canon 857 remaining in force.

    This document also mitigated the old fast (though only in certain cases…the shortening to 3 hours was later extended universally). But the 1983 CIC does not impose 4o’clock as a time limit, but merely vesperum. The question is how that is to be taken. The tradition of anticipating obligations with the Office would imply a time of 12 or 2. But if what is meant is natural evening, then even 4 is too early, at least in most places most of the year, so it should be even later

  34. Joshua08 says:

    One other point. In accordance with the obligation being to the Sunday proper (midnight to midnight), the obligation to rest from servile works binds midnight to midnight Sunday, and may not be anticipated on Saturday, though nothing wrong if you can and want to rest on Saturday evening- you simply don´t have to. So the ability to anticipate the obligation to hear Mass is not identical with the ability to anticipate the Sunday obligation in toto, since servile work must be abstained from. One can see the Commentary from the CLSA or the CLSGBI is they want

  35. C. says:

    @Geoffrey: And if I “really feel called to chant the Pater”, I could simply attend the Ordinary Form of Mass in Latin…

    That’s the spirit!

    sadly, very hard to find!

    If you really care about this, you need to do the ground work. Nobody else will do it for you.

  36. Andrew says:

    It has been my custom for some time now that at NO vernacular Masses (the only kind I get to frequent) I give all responses in Latin (quietly so no one is disturbed, sotto voce). And if the Father starts with “good morning” I reply with the rest of the (female) congregation: “et bonum mane tibi quoque Pater”.

  37. Henry Edwards says:

    Mitchel NY, I can argue equally that the silent Canon is a glory of the EF, on which I would recommend the brief article

    http://www.latin-mass-society.org/canon.htm

    or that the chanted Canon is a glory of the OF, or that it would be given a regular Sunday opportunity to hear it chanted in Latin as it is at Solesmes, on which I recommend the extraordinary CD

    La Messe du Jeudi Saint

    on which the entire Mass is chanted. (Though I find listening to the usual recitation of the Canon in English rather like listening to a Mass on TV.)

    However, how to follow the silent Canon is a different issue – it’s done by sight rather than sound. If you follow the red rather than the black alone for several Masses, you should get fairly rapidly to the point that you know almost instinctively where the priest is.

    For instance, suppose the Consecration has just been concluded. When the priest stands erect in the center and extends his hands, he begins to pray the Unde et memores, which ends with him making five signs of the cross, which you can generally see from behind by the motion of his shoulders, even if you cannot see his hands.

    When he extends his hands, he proceeds with the next prayer, the Supra quae propitio.

    Then when he bows profoundly, hands joined and placed on the altar, he begins the Supplices te rogamus.

    And so it goes. All these gesture signals are included in the usual 1962 hand missal; when you spot one, you begin the corresponding prayer yourself.

    To learn to use them effortlessly, it may help for a few Masses to sit up front to one side or another (rather than in the center) where you have a clearer view of the celebrant’s gesture and posture.

  38. Mitchell NY says:

    All,
    I am not advocating change, I like the EF Mass jsut fine..What I stated was ordered by the Vat II Council and I merely commented on what does affect me in participating at Mass. Instead of argueing against all changes as an absolute what would you change as will have to happen in order to keep in line with the Constitutionon the Sacred Liturgy? And I do not mean tomorrow. While many are interested in how the OF will be cross polinated by the EF, just as many will not even think of the same happening the other way. My 2 cents does not matter anyway.

  39. Guglielmus says:

    There is no doubt that the Archbishop is clarifying something that so many traditional Catholics needed to hear. There definitely IS a parallel set of Rubrics for each form. Clearly the Church Rules of 1962 are, as it were, “frozen in their form.” We were never sure of that. Also, if that be the case, there cannot be communion in the hand, despite Church law.

  40. C. says:

    @Mitchell: Archbishop Burke just made clear that Sacrosanctum Concilium will never be applied to the EF, so the assumption underlying your question – “what would you change as will have to happen in order to keep in line with the Constitutionon the Sacred Liturgy?” – is baseless.

    Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of second Reform I accused you of advocating earlier. I know a number of men who would resist such a thing to the death – and I would hope to be given the grace to join them. Besides which, there is already a Reformed Liturgy available to you: the Novus Ordo. Again, I suggest you make do with that.

  41. Mitchell NY says:

    C,
    Please do not suggest to me what Mass I should make due with. It is rude and presumptious. I made no attempt to insult anyone and was merely expressing an opinion as we are all free to do here. I prefer the EF Mass even with sotto voice. I just said I still get lost after 3 years. But many, many others don’t..I was trying to open my heart to what may be considered organic growth and somewhere down the line.
    ArchBishop Burke is not the Pope, and he did not issue the MP and will not issue the Clarification letter. And from what I read this is not an official declaration so it carries no official weight. Others’ words, not mine. Someone may very well apply SC to the 1962 Missal in the future. I would fight to the death within reason, not pride.
    Again I advocated nothing. I am not in a position to do so. I just don’t pit myself against the NO Mass or take a position that backs me into a corner in regards to the EF Mass. I know just as many people who wish to settle the issues in regards to both Masses and would like one Mass that truly represents organic growth over the centuries, including what SC has to stay and put the whole thing behind us. I believe it was the Pope who said in reference to the SSPX that the Magesterium is not stuck in 1962. That seems to be what you are advocating. So instead other directing your comments to me and laying out my path to Mass and Faith indirectly, perhaps you should just be thankful the Church is drawing people who grew up with the NO and now prefer the EF. If no changes ever occured in my lifetime I would still love the EF Mass. But for the tone in which you addressed me I would not want to sit anywhere near you in Mass. I did nothing to you.