Do you remember that there was supposed to be an Instruction concerning Summorum Pontificum?
So … where is it?
I have been of two minds about this instruction for a long time. On the one hand, perhaps the less said, the better. On the other hand, given that (as I interpret this pontificate) a renewal of liturgy plays a key role in the Holy Father’s “Marshall Plan” to revitalize Catholic identity, and given the fact of the ongoing talks with the SSPX, it is highly unlikely that Benedict XVI will allow the promulgation of a document which undermines his objectives of renewal and unity.
Keep in mind that Pope Benedict had asked for feedback about the implementation of Summorum Pontificum after three years. Three years went by. There has been sufficient time for feedback. It’s time for the instruction.
It is my understanding that the Instruction is on its way, that it has been, if I am right, approved by His Holiness, and will be issued in the first days of March. That implies a signature date of 22 February, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter. Documents are often signed on a significant date, but released later.
My guess is that this Instruction is going to have juridical elements, to make clearer what was a bit foggy in Summorum Pontificum. What sort of juridical issues might be clarified? What “Extraordinary” means for one thing. The use vernacular readings instead of Latin, whether or not SP applies to other Latin Rites such as the Braga or Ambrosian in addition to the Roman Rite, what constitutes a “stable group”, how the present Code of Law and other decrees and liturgical laws affect older practices (i.e., suppression of minor orders, Communion in the hand, “straw” subdeacons, congregational singing, calendar coordination, etc.) whether there can be an mixture or cross-over of elements of the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form. Those are guesses.
It is probable that this Instruction will not be the last, when it comes to the subject matter of Summorum Pontificum.
This will surely signal that Benedict XVI has not forgotten Summorum Pontificum and that he considers it to be an important document.
A change in our liturgical worship is the sine qua non for any renewal of our Catholic identity, of any “New Evangelization”.
Loading ...
Making it even clearer that bishops must stop interfering with priests who want to say the Tridentine Mass, might help.
Identifying what applies among the various practices and permissions that occurred after 1962 would help. One example, though minor, is the permission allowing the congregation to sing the Our Father. Or how exactly the Confiteor before Communion can be exercised [as was explained by a Master of Ceremonies once, it really is an option most of the time]. And along with that, practices before 1962 that were abuses should be identified. But maybe that is too much detail for what might be a succinct document? [and thank God our Pope Benedict produces efficient and succinct documents!].
Wish list
1) re-promulgation / clarification of the rules on Readings in the vernacular
2) clarification on need and desire for Personal parishes, and whether Parishes can independently (of Bishop) have more than one (SP says ONE Mass) Sunday or Daily Mass in the E.F.. The provision for only one Parish Mass seems directed to wide distribution of E.F. Masses without allowing E.F. to dominate a Parish, the exhortation to allow Personal Parishes seems to take a different tack.
3) Holy Week provisions – is there a provision for two Parish Masses during any day in Holy Week, and if not, ground rules for selection
4) what limits there are on expansion of E.F. within a Parish- to what extent do O.F. Parishioners have rights to access (ie guidelines to avoid conflict between the two communities)
Tina: Making it even clearer that bishops must stop interfering with priests who want to say the Tridentine Mass, might help.
The formulation of a plain simple statement that actually does this may require the wisdom of Solomon. Which I certainly hope (and don’t doubt that) Pope Benedict has. The difficulty is a combination of the disciplinary power a bishop rightly has and the ease with which he can telegraph what he really wants his priests to do (“or else”).
and of course,
5) Clarification of requirements for / provisions for duties of Minor Orders, since they no longer exist but are still referred to in the E.F. rubrics, instructions, etc….
I hope this document solves the straw subdeacon problem.
Also that maybe it’s accompanied by the Pope celebrating a you-know-what in public.
It would be useful to have some clear directions regarding the observance of the feasts of saints and beati canonised since 1962.
Fr. Z hit it on the head. I was having a discussion with a priest-friend of mine. We were discussing what “Extraordinary” means. I believe that is a HUGE part of the problem. He contends it has the same nuance as “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”. That simply can’t be, given context of the Motu Proprio itself, and the fact that the pope issued a MOTU PROPRIO, and not an indult. An indult assumes it is an exception to the law.
It seems that Extraordinary Form can only be used in contrast/comparison to Missa Normativa or what is considered the norm.
I’m not sure this is a real issue. Pre-Vatican II, men in minor orders were generally only found in seminaries, religious houses, or sometimes (seminarians) serving at the cathedral. Outside of those circumstances, the presence and use of men in minor orders was extremely rare, and the ordinary rubrics should be sufficient.
Years ago, I attended a Missa Cantata celebrated in an SSPX house, and an ordained lector was visiting. So the lector chanted the Epistle, standing before the altar, dressed in cassock and surplice.
I agree that this is instruction is important and will, hopefully, clarify some of the ambiguities facing those who wish to celebrate the TLM. That said, I don’t expect this to be a “silver bullet” or to significantly change the challenges facing the priests and laity who want the TLM in dioceses hostile to its celebration.
We should, IMO, always keep in the front of our minds that the restoration of the TLM (and, overall, the restoration of the Roman liturgy) is going to be a halting, difficult, years-long effort. There are still very many prelates, seminary faculty, and pastors who have (with full support from their Ordinaries) based their professional careers upon the demolition of our traditions. Only when they have been won over or retired can we then face the even more daunting battle of winning over the laity to the beauty and the mystery of the TLM.
In Christ,
Basilorat has a point in that the use of the term ‘Extraordinary’ is part of the problem of the acceptance by many of this form of the Mass. To those of us old enough to remember the Old Mass it still seems odd to call it ‘Extraordinary’ what was once Ordinary. I wonder why the term Tridentine was dropped?
My perception of the Holy Father’s resolve has changed in recent years. I used to be inclined to believe that he is ever the champion of continuity/tradition / orthodoxy whose actions are sometimes carried out in a frustratingly methodical way only because he is also the “smartest guy in the room” whose long-view is focused upon achieving the desired end in a “liberalized” Church that can only handle so much correction at any given time. In other words, when he seems to be moving very slowly on a given issue it is a matter of prudence; not a lack of resolve.
That may be the case with the instruction indeed, but now I am afraid that the Holy Father has succumbed to the pull of the progressive forces that surround him, having adopted some of their thinking as his own, and the resolve that I once imagined to be unshakable isn’t really so.
Three reasons:
1. His timidness in celebrating Holy Mass. For instance, the fact that he has never publicly celebrated the EF can hardly be reconciled with the sentiments expressed in SP. Also, the half-step of celebrating the OF versus populum with the “Benedictine arrangement” can hardly be reconciled with what he wrote in “Spirit of the Liturgy” (just 5 years before being elevated to the Chair of St. Peter) about ad orientem being a “fundamental expression” of the liturgy’s essence.
2. His recent comments re: the Assisi prayer meeting in which he encouraged heretics to continue in their error. This one is flat out breathtaking to me.
3. The events surrounding the Roman Missal 3rd Edition: If the leaked text is accurate, one can hardly be encouraged to imagine that the text the Holy Father received and praised in April is being changed as reported.
In the end, I’m not so sure that the Holy Father considers SP as important today as he did when he issued it. I hope he does, but I wonder…
The bottom line is that we must pray for the Holy Father.
It would seem that far too many Bishops, at least in the USA, have resisted efforts to celebrate the TLM in their dioceses. Specific and unmistakeable direction seems needed with some mechanism to deal with those who resist. Without that firm step all else is practically a moot point.
“2. His recent comments re: the Assisi prayer meeting in which he encouraged heretics to continue in their error. This one is flat out breathtaking to me.”
Louie,
But wait. The Assisi prayer meeting has yet to happen. ( AS Fr. Z has pointed out.)
B16 has already rejected spurious interpretations of the ’86 event. I doubt a replay.
It is up to the Bishops how they want to approach the provisions of Summorum Pontificum. There is nothing further to be legislated. Summorum Pontificum was crafted in such a way as leave the primacy of the Novus Ordo intact. And the present culture will defend it’s all vernacular turf.
Perhaps a different angle might work better: something to restrict the prevalence of the all-vernacular Mass. Providing, for instance, that for each 10 all vernacular Masses there must be at least one all Latin Mass. The training of clergy in Latin is already legislated (canon 249). Imagine the amount of fresh air that would bring in. About 500 Masses are celebrated where I live every Sunday: so about 50 of them would have to be in Latin. Not bad! Before you can sow, you have to prepare the field.
I suspect that some new legislation about some minimal usage of Latin for all roman-rite Catholics will show up one of these days. This wholesale vernacularization will have to end at some point. And then the TLM will be welcomed and no one will have to force the issue.
Change the name “Extraordinary” form to “Original” form, as suggested by my cherished pastor. I suppose that two OFs (Original/Ordinary) would be confusing, though.
“Also, the half-step of celebrating the OF versus populum with the “Benedictine arrangement” can hardly be reconciled with what he wrote in “Spirit of the Liturgy” (just 5 years before being elevated to the Chair of St. Peter) about ad orientem being a “fundamental expression” of the liturgy’s essence. ”
Actually, St. Peter’s is occidented, so that when BXVI celebrates versus populum, he is at the same time celebrating ad orientem. There is therefore nothing to reconcile.
I prefer the Old Mass 100%. I personally believe it is superior in every way.
HOWEVER
I sincerely believe that the issue of Latin must be seperate from the Missal issue. Language is symbol, not inherently “sacred”. Frankly, if they had simply started out allowing the Ancient Liturgy to be celebrated in English, we would have avoided much of it. Instead, they did it as steps towards a complete toss-out of the Old Missal. If one really understands the richness of the Old Mass, they see primarily the prayers and rubrics are altogether rich, eloquent, beautiful, and clear and loud symbols. The Latin part it seems, is merely a secondary issue. That said, Latin of course, must be preserved. But if we’re going to restore this thing to its proper prominence, we have to, in my opinion, seperate the two.
Exchief:
I fully understand what you are saying, but honestly, the US Bishops are better -ON…THE…WHOLE…(let me emphasize that!), than MOST bishops’ conferences worldwide! Seriously! Look at England and Whales, even Italy!
basilorat: The Latin part it seems, is merely a secondary issue. That said, Latin of course, must be preserved. But if we’re going to restore this thing to its proper prominence, we have to, in my opinion, seperate the two.
There remains the problem of the translation. As we have seen, that is a tough issue. Also, you cannot separate Latin from the Roman Rite.
How about insisting that all seminaries offer the EF on a regular basis-at least once a week- and teach the form to the seminarians, not in an hour or two days, but in a term class as a required course-either semester or trimester term,along with the NO? If the EF is offered regularly and taught, this would change the atmosphere in the dioceses regarding the EF. This is not being done in the undergraduate, or graduate seminaries in the Midwest with which I am familiar-Mundelein, Conception, St. Thomas. I do not know about Kenrick. St. John Cantius, of course, has workshops for seminarians, but if the Mass is not being allowed on a regular basis,(twice a year is not regular), what is the point of having some seminarians, who are then branded by their bishops as “trads”, go to a workshop? All seminaries should learn and appreciate the EF.
There would be a great benefit just to having the document itself issued. What the document says, of course, is crucial, but the issuing of such a follow-up document signals that SP is an ongoing effort… it was not a “fire-and-forget” event. It would signal that it is still, and will continue to be a central part of “the plan”.
Clemens Romanus: “Actually, St. Peter’s is occidented, so that when BXVI celebrates versus populum, he is at the same time celebrating ad orientem. There is therefore nothing to reconcile.”
– except for masses BXVI has celebrated outside St. Peter’s. Pace.
“All seminaries should learn and appreciate the EF.”
I agree. If both forms make up the Roman rite and both have the same legal juridical status as was told to me by Cardinal Castrillòn Hoyos, then those who are ordained without having learned the EF are getting ordained without knowing THE Roman rite and the rector who states publicly to the bishop that they have been correctly formed is less than truthful to his bishop. THE Roman rite now has two forms and there are obligations on the pastor and the bishop when the EF is requested by parishioners so my point is that men formed for priesthood without the EF preparation are not prepared to fulfill their obligations AS PRIESTS under the new law SP. Hopefully the “instructio” will deal with this. don Jeffry
Basilorat queries why the ancient liturgy was not merely translated directly. I used to wonder that too – after all in our missals there was a perfectly good translation side by side with the Latin. To all those who say that we did not know what was being said, this was never true as we could follow the translation whilst at the same time absorbing the familiar Latin. As a convert it did not take long to be able to reply’ Et cum spiritu tuo’ to’ Dominus vobis cum’ and to understand what it meant without having to refer to the translation.
Your ‘England and Whales’ made me smile – I don’t think we have many whales round these shores!
Clemens Romanus: “Actually, St. Peter’s is occidented, so that when BXVI celebrates versus populum, he is at the same time celebrating ad orientem. There is therefore nothing to reconcile.”
Asophist makes the most salient point. (Thank you.) That said, the “ad orientem” posture need not be held in strict conformity to the compass. We do not pray toward a geographical location. I.e.; a common direction of liturgical prayer is a powerful sacred sign regardless of what the compass reads, and its value is destroyed by a versus populum orientation. Another topic for another thread, really. I stand by my original point as it relates to the Holy Father’s resolve.
A good place to start would be to collect all of the PCED correspondence since the motu proprio. Several of the above issues have been addressed, for better or for worse. For instance, the role of subdeacon is to filled by only an ordained subdeacon, deacon or priest. PCED has been quite clear on this via dubia letters. If a parish cannot find three men with major orders, it is not quite ready for a Missa Solemnis. Use the Missa Cantata with incense.
As far as some of the other issues, I for one don’t want to hear a new rule concerning the TLM. If a communion fast of at least three hours (preferably midnight) is the law, then so is communion in the hand and female altar boys. If the extraordinary minister of holy communion is a layman, and not a deacon, then don’t be surprised if this applies across the board. Be careful what you wish for when making these wish lists of desired liberalizations. Just leave the TLM alone, please. The simple answer to all of these questions is to look up what the answer was in 1962 and make that the answer that applies today.
Mike: “Louie, But wait. The Assisi prayer meeting has yet to happen. ( AS Fr. Z has pointed out.)”
I’m not pointing to the meeting, per se, but to the Holy Father’s reported comments in advance of the event in which he invites:
“Christian brethren of different confessions, leaders of the world’s religious traditions and, in their hearts, all men and women of good will, to join me on this journey in order to commemorate that important historical gesture of my predecessor, and solemnly to renew the commitment of believers of all religions to live their religious faith as a service to the cause of peace.”
Assuming this report is accurate, the Roman Ponitff exhorting heretics to persist their error is nothing short of jaw dropping.
Louie Verrecchio:
You are twisting the Pope’s words: he is not “exhorting heretics to persist in their error”. He is urging members of all religions to embrace “the cause of peace”. Two different statements.
I could ask a criminal to commit to the cause of peace without any compromise to my religion.
Supertradmum:
Kenrick at least a couple years ago, required all St. Louis seminarians to learn the “Ordinary Form of Former Times(!!!)” My friend taught it. It was made an elective for other seminarians. But let me tell you…just THAT arrangement made vocation directors and other bishops absolutely seethe with rage(sp?)! That was in the days of HE Burke.
Fr. Z: Not sure what you mean about separating Latin from the Roman Rite. I would tread lightly about ever disagreeing with you on this type of point, but I’m wondering if it’s in the nuance? I understand the place of Latin in the Latin Church and all influences of the Vernacular must derive from the Official Version which is Latin. I was getting at making Latin the main issue. It seems possible to retain the nature and, shall we say, “expressive or richness” of the Ancient Liturgy were it translated into English, and as one who knows Latin, readily admits that some of the poetry is lost, and certainly, Gregorian Chant in it’s best and purest form only works in Latin.
I guess I was getting at traddies who make, in my estimation, a bigger deal out of Latin than the actual liturgy itself, equating it almost to how the Muslims view the Koran. In other words, if your not reading the Koran in the original, then your not reading the Koran AT ALL. If I recall my theology correctly, and please tell me if I am wrong… (not being smarmy), Scripture is the inspired Word of God, different from the Mohammadan sense of God whispering into “the prophet”. In short, I guess if I had a trade-off the Novus Ordo in Latin, or the Old Mass in English, I’d go for the Old Mass in a second, because the theology of the prayers, even translated are so much more rich and beautiful. I hope I haven’t confused anyone.
Disclaimer: I find the new Mass, regardless how it is celebrated, in whatever language, utterly and absolutely hopeless. Only obedience keeps me going to it when I can’t find the Gregorian Liturgy available. And reading the GIRM made it worse.
basilorat: … if I had a trade-off the Novus Ordo in Latin, or the Old Mass in English, I’d go for the Old Mass in a second …
In that respect you probably represent the majority of the EF adherents. For the most part, as a group, they do not appreciate the relevance of the Latin language. And by saying “for the most part” I allow for some who do. But the majority of them do not.
The PCED has already weighed in on the lay “straw” subdeacon and deemed it illicit.
I personally know someone who played that role for years, wrote to Rome, and got his response last spring. They could make it public at this point, but the dye has been cast, thank God.
Andrew I must clarify that I love very, very much, Latin, but I admit I’m sick of it being such an overemphasized sticking point. In that way people stop saying, I don’t like the Latin Mass! At least we can move the argument forward getting past that, and explain why the priest faces “liturgical east”, and all the other ritual that have been summarily tossed!
I wish the new generation could see the richness of the Old Mass.
Andrew: “I could ask a criminal to commit to the cause of peace without any compromise to my religion.”
Reread the quote. The Holy Father – again, if accurately reported – didn’t stop at simply urging non-Catholics to engage the cause of peace; rather he is urging “believers of all religions solemnly to renew the commitment to live their religious faith as a service to the cause of peace.”
This is tantamount to the Vicar of Christ telling a Buddhist to “be the best Buddhist you can be” or “go, live out your Buddhist faith.” Whether it’s urged in service to peace or not doesn’t matter. For one, “peace” is defined differently by different religions. (Just ask a radical Muslim who considers “living his religious faith” a license to kill innocent infidels in service to his idea of peace.) For another, where is the mission of the Church and the call to conversion in this?
A Catholic understanding is that true peace is always in jeopardy apart from the faith of the Church. Urging non-Catholics to “live out their” false religions would be questionable coming from a parish priest, it is an invitation to scandal coming from the pope.
Let me be clear, I am no detractor of the Holy Father at all. On the contrary. I’m simply commenting soberly on the quote in question, which at best is regrettable.
For instance, the role of subdeacon is to filled by only an ordained subdeacon, deacon or priest. PCED has been quite clear on this via dubia letters.
Actually, the PCED ruled that an instituted acolyte may serve as a straw subdeacon:
http://tinyurl.com/6jfomgq
[Actually… there is an Instruction coming. We shall see.]
I sincerely hope that the instruction makes clear that the word “extraordinary” with regard to the pre-Vatican 2 mass is not to be considered part of that mass’s proper name.
“Extraordinary” is not capitalized in the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio. It is not part of any proper name. In fact, in the accompanying letter, the pre- and post Vatican 2 masses are referred to as “a Forma extraordinaria” and “the Forma ordinaria”, respectively. The indefinite article is used with regard to the pre-Vatican 2 mass. It is one ‘extraordinary’ form among others. It is not “THE” extraordinary form. Please stop pretending that “Extraordinary Form” is a proper name.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
Henry: true, you. It seems the present language wasn’t plain enough? – those that intend to disobey are going to find a way around any directives.
Tina,
I have to agree. Those who require “clarification” of a direct and straightforward Motu Proprio are not going to be affected by any additional instructions or clarifications. We’ll just have to wait and see, but my suspicion is that the forthcoming instruction will have little to do with protecting or otherwise enforcing the Motu proprio. Instead I think (perhaps because I have a bad attitude) it will contain concessions to those who hate the Mass.
Mt prediction: The new instruction will contain permission to use the 1970 prefaces with the 1962 Mass. Unlike the new translation, the “publishing industry” will jump on this and new Missals with these additions will become available within a month. In the meantime, Pastors and Bishops will show the initiative and publish local copies of the “revised Missal” for use in their Parishes within aeek
MichaelJ: The new instruction will contain permission to use the 1970 prefaces with the 1962 Mass.
I hope so. Many of the 1970 Latin prefaces are just as beautiful and profound as the 1962 prefaces, and constitute (I think) an addition to the Roman rite that is both worthy and even needed. I understand that in medieval times virtually every feast had its own preface, and arguably the Tridentine revision pruned too many flowers of the ancient liturgy.
Indeed, how about use of OF prefaces in the EF, and use of EF rubrics in the OF, for that wonted “mutual enrichment” between the two forms?
Many of the comments posted by subscribers of this blog (and elsewhere) lead me to believe that a number of Catholics are under the impression that Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum was the opening salvo in a war against the reformed liturgy, and that the Holy Father has it as his program to, one day, restore the celebration of Mass according to the Missal of 1962 (as the “ordinary” form), or at least to put the Tridentine form on a par with the present day ordinary form. That goal is something the Pope is leading us to, some seem to imagine.
As I read Summorum Pontificum, however, I don’t come away with that impression at all. “How will this be implemented,” many are asking. In fact, as I read it, it doesn’t seem to me that there is anything to be “implemented” at all, at least not in the sense that people are supposing (“make seminarians learn the ‘EF’,” “push the altars back,” “require every parish to have at least one ‘EF’,” &c).
Does Summorum Pontificum really imply that sort of presumption of a return to the pre-Vatican II liturgical practices, however? It basically says that if you are a priest and you want to use the 1962 Missal, there isn’t anything to hinder you. If you want to do so publicly, however, take care that there exists a demonstrable pastoral need (or at least that no harm will be done by doing so) and always bear in mind that your bishop is the chief pastor of the diocese. If you run into a problem, call Ecclesia Dei.
That’s all I got from the document. I didn’t get, “get ready, fathers, because like it or not, the 1962 Missal is coming back! Start brushing up on your Latin and start pushing those altars back!” I read nothing to justify so many speculations about “when” (not “if”, but “when”) the Pope will publicly celebrate Mass at St. Peter’s using the 1962 Missal. Nothing in Summorum Pontificum indicated to me that future generations of clergy will be asked (much less mandated) to learn how to use the 1962 Missal. So, truthfully, I find myself perplexed as to where all this talk about “implementation” is coming from. All these words about bishops having a mandatory “EF” in their cathedral churches each week, about having “EF” parishes, &c, &c, &c. I just don’t get it.
I think this whole idea that Benedict XVI is leading the charge against Vatican II and against Paul VI’s Missal and is on a crusade to lead the Church back in time is an odd one, at best. Benedict XVI is a man of Vatican II, he is committed to it, he is a deep believer in it, and a true disciple of Pope Paul VI. He isn’t going to cancel it. He isn’t misleading us to imagine that he might. And he isn’t going to make the 1962 Missal current, again.
The Pope’s goal, it seems to me, is to reintroduce the idea that Holy Mass, whenever and wherever it is celebrated, according to no matter what missal, should be celebrated with dignity and reverence and beauty and with all due solemnity, adhering to the published rubrics.
The Pope’s example will, I hope, cause the present day ordinary expression of the liturgy to evolve into a more solemn and beautiful thing than it typically tends to be. The Pope is providing an excellent example. I see little evidence that many clergymen in my own country are patterning their own celebrations after his, to be honest, but my hope is in the next generation of clergy, not in this one.
I, for one, do believe that Summorium Pontificum is “the opening salvo in a war against the reformed liturgy” although not by design. I am confident that the natural byproduct of having more widespread availablity of the ancient Mass will lead the Novus Ordo to whither away from disinterest. Not in this generation, certainly, but in the next.
That being said, I hope that the upcoming instructions will offer more protections. I am well aware of the cautions about “flies in amber” and “being stuck in the past”, but truthfully, I am ok with these monikers.
If you’ll indulge me in a bit of wishful thinking, I sincerely hope that the upcoming instructions takes the form of a father’s stern admonishment to his grade school aged children: ” You broke your Mass, leave his alone”