WDTPRS POLL: Universae Ecclesiae

Here is a little poll about the new Instruction.  I have written a post about it.  I have made a PODCAzT so you can listen to it.

Give your considered answer, having first read it or listened to it and then having carefully weighed the pros and cons.

If you wish, add a comment in the combox.

I thought I would encourage you to comment.  I know how reticent most of you are about giving an opinion about anything to do with liturgy.

All in all, I rate my satisfaction with Universae Ecclesiae, at...

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in PODCAzT, POLLS, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, Universae Ecclesiae and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to WDTPRS POLL: Universae Ecclesiae

  1. Baylor_convert says:

    On not entirely updated versions of IE, Firefox, and Chrome, this shows up as “[id poll=”71″]” How’s that for a comment. ;) Love the work you do, Father. Keep it up!

  2. brianvzn says:

    I would love to vote but also see the poll as “[id poll=”71″]” : (

  3. Prof. Basto says:

    I’m having the same problem as brianvzn. The pool isn’t working.

  4. ies0716 says:

    To the three posters above: I had the same issue at first with the [id poll=”71′]. To resolve it, I clicked on the bar at the top of my browser window that said “Internet Explorer has blocked content without a valid security certificate” and clicked “Display Blocked Content.” The page reloaded, and I could see the poll.

  5. Andrew says:

    I wish there was a rating slightly above “very good” such as a “very enthusiastic Very Good”.

  6. RichardT says:

    Definitely looks like a follow-on to me.

    It’s pretty good, and it makes things considerably more difficult for the opponents of the EF, but they could still fight back and win (or even play a long defensive game for a draw).

  7. Prof. Basto says:

    Now I was able to vote. I voted “very good”.

    Regarding article 23 of the Instruction, one must note that the Mass “sine populo” mentioned by article 2 of the Motu Proprio can actually be attended by a congregation, in the form of article 4 of the Motu Proprio. So this mass “sine populo” or with only one minister can actually have the populo present.

    As for scheduled Masses, the norms of articles 3 or 5 of the Motu Prorpio apply, respectively in the case of a religious order or of a parish.

  8. JimmyA says:

    We have ALREADY had the Archbishop of Westminster saying the English Church won’t be training for the EF in seminaries because there is “no pastoral need”. Feels like business as usual!

  9. Virgil says:

    Okay. Just okay.

    I want to have a more clear instruction about the integration of the two forms, in the same community. The instruction still talks as if the EF is a separate community, as if it were a separate rite.

    Integration of the liturgical year EF and OF? Including lectionary? The Roman Rite now has two completely different calendars! What’s a parish to do?

    Parishes with both forms? (The bit on the Triduum seems to assume that there will be conflict in this way, rather than cooperation.)

    Seminary training, as noted by Fr Z, seems an option. Rather, shouldn’t we assume that all priests know both forms well? We are, after all, one community, one Latin Rite.

    Etc

  10. TrueLiturgy says:

    I voted just ok. I think there were way too manys uses of the word “should” vs “must” and liberals love the distinction.

  11. Thomas in MD says:

    Just the fact that it settles Communion in the hand and ALTAR GIRLS has me dancing around the office!

  12. PilgrimToChrist says:

    === Good ===
    “23. The faculty to celebrate sine populo (or with the participation of only one minister) in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite is given by the Motu Proprio to all priests, whether secular or religious (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 2). For such celebrations therefore, priests, by provision of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, do not require any special permission from their Ordinaries or superiors.”

    “34. The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted.”

    === Bad ===
    “?19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.”

    “30. As regards tonsure, minor orders and the subdiaconate, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum does not introduce any change in the discipline of the Code of Canon Law of 1983; consequently, in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, one who has made solemn profession or who has been definitively incorporated into a clerical institute of apostolic life, becomes incardinated as a cleric in the institute or society upon ordination to the diaconate, in accordance with canon 266 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law.”

    “31. Only in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and in those which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria, is the use of the Pontificale Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and major orders permitted.”

    ======
    So I voted 3, it is a mixed bag. But I think the most important development is allowing religious to say the Rite of their order without requiring permission of their Superiors. For instance, both the O.Carm. and O.C.D. adopted the 1970 Missal and do not allow the Rite of the Holy Sepulcher (the Carmelite monks who do use it are diocesan and not part of either order). So hopefully this will liberate religious priests and revitalize their particular Rites.

  13. Alan Aversa says:

    I chose “Okay. Just okay.” because, although §8, which affirms that Summorum Pontificum is for all the faithful (omnibus fidelibus), is very good, §21, the only section to mention seminaries, is fairly weak, although it does cite Canon 249 on how “future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin.” It also says they should have “the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite” “where pastoral need suggests it.” It should’ve explicitly said that “pastoral need” is suggesting it, as, e.g., this Italian poll shows: 9 million Italians would go to the EF every week!

    This section is probably the most interesting:

    28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

    “[W]ithin its own area” (“quoad materiam propriam“) could mean two things: within the whole Church (as §1 and §8 imply) or within only EF parishes. I could see some people interpreting this as a sort of “creeping abrogation” of Vatican II’s liturgical reforms.

  14. Steve T. says:

    Please don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the great.

  15. Prof. Basto says:

    We have ALREADY had the Archbishop of Westminster saying the English Church won’t be training for the EF in seminaries because there is “no pastoral need”. Feels like business as usual!

    But now you have NOT ONE, but TWO remedies!

    You can appeal to the PCED, the Archbishop’s hierarchical Superior, and, if the decision is not satisfactory and you have legal grounds, you can bring the matter appeal to the Church’s Supreme Court, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, and that Court, the Burke Court, will hand down enforceable judgement in the name of the Holy Father.

  16. maynardus says:

    All-in-all not too terribly bad for the good guys. Like others I’d have liked to see a few more “musts” and “shalls”, particularly in the area of training in Latin and the celebration of the E.F. But if there’s one thing we’ve seen from Pope Benedict in his first six years it’s that he really is a wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove. He can’t legitimately be accused of forcing his own “preferences” on the Church (although he will be so accused anyway) but he is creating yet more openings for the organic regeneration of the Usus Antiquor. Sadly, this doesn’t solve every single problem with one stroke, but it lays another course of good solid bricks in the foundation of the reform. If it does become necessary in a few years to issue a more emphatic instruction it will have these good footings to support it.

  17. worm says:

    While I too would have liked stronger language in terms of seminary training, I’m not surprised. If the commission was trying to address questions about Summorum Pontificum, it wouldn’t go beyond what was already in that document. I’m sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but that document didn’t mention seminary training did it?

  18. irishgirl says:

    I voted for ‘very good’.
    I know a group of traditional Catholics-not SSPXers-who won’t go for this at all. They didn’t like Blessed John Paul II, and they don’t like Benedict XVI. They call everything that’s after Vatican II ‘the New Church’.
    I go to the chapel of this group for Mass on Sunday, because there is nothing in any of the local parishes for a regular Sunday Mass in the EF. The group I used to belong to only has the EF Mass at most only twice a month; it used to have the FSSP priests come twice a month (and sometimes more) but they were suddenly not allowed to come up from PA to say Mass. There was a diocesan priest who had spent some time in the FSSP (he wasn’t given a new assignment when his previous parish was merged) and had said the EF Mass for the group I used to go to. But now he’s back in his original diocese and has a new parish with a larger Mass schedule, and he can’t come unless it’s during a ‘ghetto hour’ on Sunday afternoon. He did start an EF Mass in his new parish, using the early Mass for that purpose-I don’t know if it’s still going on. But the driving distance is rather far away, and can be unpredictable weather-wise in winter.
    I have a feeling that in my diocese, there won’t be much of a difference in implimenting this Instruction. There is still a strong liberal element in the chancery, and they have the Bishop’s ear.
    I go to the place where I am now just for the Mass-I don’t care for some of the ‘politics’, and I steer clear of saying anything controversial.

  19. triceps says:

    ““?19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.””

    This is a very strange and ambiguous passage.
    It needs clarification.
    Does it mean that Catholics who now assist at SSPX chapels because they have no option for the TLM anywhere else cannot approach the bishop about establishing an every Sunday TLM in the diocesan Cathedral, because they want to be involved with a canonically regular Mass?
    I am lost, maybe someone can help.

  20. Jason Keener says:

    The instruction is pretty much what I expected. I wish the Holy See would have absolutely required that all seminarians be trained in the Extraordinary Form; however, I am not overly worried. As the biological solution makes its presence felt in the coming decades, more and more seminarians and priests will learn how to celebrate the Extraordinary Form in one way or another, and sound liturgy will again become the norm in the Latin Church. This instruction is just another step in a journey that will take several decades. We can be thankful that another major brick has been laid in the work of true liturgical reform.

    Also, whether or not the Extraordinary Form flourishes depends largely on our own efforts. Do we support with our prayers and checkbooks priests and religious orders who celebrate the Traditional Mass? Do we join traditional choirs and scholas? As we support good liturgy, do we do all we can to not appear as bitter traditionalists who gripe unnecessarily about every post-conciliar development? Do we welcome newcomers to the Traditional Latin Mass with smiles, or do we hiss at them because they might not be wearing a chapel veil? Do we also accept the fact that change is a part of life and even the Extraordinary Form can undergo some reform as the Holy See might deem appropriate as with new prefaces, etc.? Now that the Extraordinary Form has been completely liberated and has the full support of the Bishop of Rome, the ball is in our court.

  21. Hieronymus says:

    I think that this is an improvement for the most part.
    I foresee continuing problems in major areas, though. Paragraph’s 27 and 28 are going to be a point of contention. If they hadn’t stocked the episcopate with bishops hostile to tradition, I think all would be fine. But then if they hadn’t stocked the episcopate with bishops hostile to tradition, this issue would have gone away 30 years ago and the liturgy would be glorious.

    I do not expect this document to end the attempts to foist upon us the more nefarious novelties of the NOM: communion in the hand, girl altar boys, and “EMHC’s”. The faithful have some recourse now, but it will still come down to one question: Is the Vatican ready to start enforcing discipline at the episcopal level? In that regard we need far fewer words, and far more action.

  22. RichardT says:

    Prof. Basto, I can’t see the appeals process being much use in terms of changing what is taught in seminaries.

    The seminarians, I suspect, wouldn’t dare to take their seminary to the PCED, never mind the Signatura. And I wouldn’t have thought that a non-seminarian would have the necessary locus standi (or whatever the canon law equivalent is; I’m not a canonist) to bring an action.

  23. Dr. Eric says:

    I voted very good. I wished that the instruction would have been stronger on having seminarians specifically trained in the EF and in Latin.

  24. nanetteclaret says:

    This ruling will not have any impact at all on my husband and me. We drive 18 miles to the closest Catholic Church, which is in a small town. The pastor has told me that he “doesn’t like Latin,” in answer to my questioning why we can’t do the Gloria, Creed, etc. in Latin at the Novus Ordo bi-lingual Masses (which turn into Babel when 1/2 the congregation says the responses in English and the other 1/2 in Spanish, with the Our Father being the worst). The bishop would just tell me that “there is a Latin Mass Parish in Tyler” and to go there, since he just established it as a “personal parish for the whole diocese.” It’s only 85 miles from our ranch (170 round trip). Not going to happen. So it will be same old same old as usual week in and week out.

  25. Andrew says:

    Dr. Eric:
    I voted very good. I wished that the instruction would have been stronger on having seminarians specifically trained in the EF and in Latin.

    Why would a clarifying instruction state what is already expressly legislated by Canon Law?

  26. HyacinthClare says:

    I said “very good” too. What I really don’t understand is the Holy Father’s continual insistence that the two rites are the same worship. Is he thinking of an ideal form of the OF, reverent, using exactly the black and the red as they are written, assisted by an attentive, well-formed, God-toward faithful? The way HE probably does it? If I’d EVER seen one of those in the 18 years I’ve been Catholic, I might understand better.

  27. Golatin5048 says:

    I said “very good”. I love the part of when it talks about the history of the EF. I also LOVE how they restated that the EF and OF go hand in hand. I have already ran into 3 grumpy liberals commenting on the document, and how the EF is “Going back” etc, so I showed them what it said, and they shut up REAL fast!

    I like the part on how the EF should be offered at pilgrim sites for pilgrims who what it. I must ask, could this be the teaching we need to get the EF mass back at the national shrine???

    I think the part on the seminarians is ok. I like how they changed it to should, but I would have hoped for must. We can not get too upset over this, because it will help.

    All in all, I am very happy with this.

  28. Joseph-Mary says:

    I voted okay. It can be said in my archdiocese that since there is an FSSP parish (about 80 miles one way from me) that the ‘pastoral need’ is being met. IF our archbishop begins to bring a greater access to TLM training into our seminary, then I would upgrade my vote to ‘very good’ but at present it seems there are loopholes for those who want them. However those very obedient bishops certainly can see the obvious desire of the Holy Father and should then, in conscience, begin to more fully incorporate the TLM into the regular celebrations of the Holy Sacrifice in their diocese plus train seminarians as well…even if it is not their personal ‘cup of tea’.

  29. Pavegs says:

    As a seminarian I am somewhat disappointed about the weakness of the section regarding us. However as a whole I am very pleased with it. We have seen no indication that Summorum Pontificum will be implemented in our seminary and my inclination is that it won’t be. Seminarians are quite vulnerable in these situations. We have no real recourse to anyone and risk being kicked out for being to ridged and not “pastoral” if we request the extraordinary form. Please pray for seminarians!

  30. jkking says:

    I voted fantastic, for a couple reasons.

    First: I think it’s wonderful, given the hostility toward the more traditional form of Holy Mass, that the Pope has put it definitively on an equal footing, alongside the OF. I go to a Jesuit university, and it’s nice to be reminded that the EF truly is a full-fledged part of the Church’s life. Finally, a nice dose of reality!

    Second: My heart also sank slightly when I saw the “pastoral need” language, etc, precisely because I have seen (and I’m sure most of you also have as well) that kind of language abused in a terribly obnoxious way in its application. However, maybe the Pope is trying to send a message in what he doesn’t require, as well as what he does. I think he may be trying to send a message to the Bishops of the world that he truly is the Holy Father, not a Tyrant. He wants to lead the Bishops (and the faithful who are unfamiliar with the EF, for that matter) to the treasures of beauty in tradition and let them see and experience for themselves. He wants them to lead the horses to water, but he knows he can’t make them drink! I think if the Instruction had just been a bunch of commands, true there would have been less wiggle room, but it may also have engendered a lot of bitterness and could further ghettoize the Latin language and “traditionalists.” I think the Pope wants the Church to embrace the traditional liturgical life, and not be forced to accomodate it under a disciplinary sanction.

    As a good priest, and devoté of the EF once told me, “the Faith is like a fine wine – you don’t keep it to yourself. You inherently want to share it with those you love, and even those you don’t. What’s the point if you just hoard it to yourself.” Same goes for the beauty, profundity, and absolute blessing that is the EF. We need to share it, not enforce it. At least for now.

  31. kpoterack says:

    I chose “fantastic” because – given the state of the Church today – I think it is fantastic. Also, people have to remember that law has a real, but limited, usefulness. When a society breaks down and becomes “lawless,” so to speak, passing more laws will not do one bit of good. People will just ignore them as they ignore the already existing laws.

    It is all about a change of culture and mindset. In this case the law can be a teacher to those who are open, but lacking the liturgical culture. Thus it can help to form people, who are open to it, and encourage those who are of the right mindset.

    I hope that the PCED will play its role in enforcing the law but, as Msgr. Schuler used to say, “what if the Pope lays down the law, but no one picks it up?” A ‘smack-down’ may be emotional satisfying but, to anyone who has been in a position of authority knows that, it usually has to be a last resort and for extremely serious reasons.

    Ultimately the people in authority – priests, bishops – have to be open to this law. This will take time – years, decades, generations – but with Summorum Pontificum and, now, Universae Ecclesiae we are definitely on the right track.

  32. Palladino says:

    After Summorum Pontificum came out, I called at least 5 different parishes, every one of them said they would not be having the Latin Mass there. It was one excuse after another. There was one pastor who told me, “I’ll retire before any Latin Mass is said in “my” church!”

    So, while we may read some positive instructions here by our Holy Father, and as we most suredly hope that this comes to fruition in All dioceses; I would have to venture to say, that Until the majority of modernists are no longer, will much good come from this. A Captain’s order is of no value to his army if his men refuse to carry out his orders.
    Did the whip our Dear Lord used on the money-changers who desecrated the House of God change these people? Still, all Catholics Must Stand up and Make Themselves be heard, Loud and Clear (if needed) to those who choose to ignore and remain disobedient to the instructions given them by Peter! Trod On Dear Catholics,..Trod On!

  33. skeeton says:

    “Where pastoral needs suggest it” = “stable group”. In other words, this is the phrase lib bishops will exploit to avoid fully implementing UE, much the same way “stable group” was exploited to ignore SP.

  34. Glen M says:

    Thank you Fr.Z for all the work you have done on this story, and all the work you do for the faithful daily.

    I voted “Very good”. The outcome of this document will be a result of the implementation.

    Given the destruction the “spirit of V2″ change agents did with ambiguous wording of official documents, it’s reasonable many of us are skeptical today. However, those in charge now were not in the 70’s. Their day has passed and by their fruits we know them. Australia’s Bishop Morris had one ordination in his eighteen years in charge of his diocese. The Church needs to rebuild and it will be bishops such as Chaput leading the way, not Morris.

    Yet, to paraphrase Archbishop Sheen, it will not be the clergy that actually rebuilds the Church. This document provides the laity the means to rebuild one brick at a time. Instead of venting on blogs and in comboxes, we need to show up at the job site and roll up our sleeves. If your bishop says there isn’t a ‘stable group’ in your diocese – then start one! Talk to people you know, visit neighbouring parishes, research bulletins on-line, seek out help from established organizations like Una Voce. Look at the Pro Life movement for inspiration – 40 Days For Life was started by a couple of people fed up with the status quo.

    Many are disappointed with ‘weak’ instructions to seminaries. I suggest this was a pastoral and pragmatic decision. Given the priest and seminarian shortage we do not have the luxury of turning anyone away willing and able to be a priest. Some young men may not be able to acquire the Latin language. In the past they could have become religious, but again, due to the shortage we need priests much more than religious right now.

    The words “should be” serve two objectives: first, they encourage the teaching of Latin and the E.F. (can’t have the latter without the former). Second, they will quickly identify those bishops in-line with the Pope’s intentions and those who oppose him. The PCED provides the faithful proper course in dealing with such a bishop. If the bishops in England have already said there isn’t a ‘pastoral need’ then someone needs to notify the PCED.

    The Extraordinary Form is to be ‘along side the other’ and given ‘appropriate honor’. Our Holy Father has given us the means to rebuild our Church but if we sit back and do nothing, nothing will happen.

  35. Marius2k4 says:

    Exactly, skeeton.

    From Damian Thompson’s blog, today, regarding seminaries teaching the old rite where “pastoral needs exist”:

    “Among others, said suggestion was promptly declined by the leading prelate of England and Wales — Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster — who said shortly after the text’s release that “no pastoral need exist[ed]” for the teaching of the pre-Conciliar form in UK houses, and that it’d add to an already “crowded” formation program.”

    Bloody Magic Circle bishops. I fantasize during my exercise bike workouts in the morning about the Holy Father showing up at Sunday Mass, suspending +Nichols and the rest of the conference (think the excommunication scene from Becket), celebrating Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form pontifically, and then only raising their suspensions on an individual basis, after a grueling, pervasive interview into their characters and how they’re going to change. Please, Lord.

  36. Luvadoxi says:

    I voted ok, because of the ambiguous language…”should”, “pastoral need”, etc. Our diocese has an FSSP parish, 85 miles from me one way, and I foresee this being used as the answer to any requests for another traditional Latin mass. Same old, same old.

  37. It was a fantastic document! However, the paragraph concerning the “lacuna” was the biggest understatement of all time. Very Roman!!!

  38. Geoffrey says:

    I think it is safe to say that the terms “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite” and “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” are indeed the official terms to use. I hope they enter the everyday language of the Church soon. This goes especially for the Ordinary Form… so that those who remain distrustful of the Extraordinary Form begin to realize that both are here to stay, both are equal, both are beneficial, etc.

  39. Brooklyn says:

    I chose “very good” because as Fr. Z said, it is brick by brick, and it does still give a bit of an out to bishops. But overall, I am very pleased and grateful.

    Interesting take by the secular media. This was the headline on Reuters: “Vatican increases pressure to allow Latin mass.” And the first paragraph states: “The Vatican told Catholic bishops around the world on Friday they had to obey a papal order allowing priests to say the old-style Latin mass for traditionalist Catholics, whether they liked it or not.”

    Later on in the article it states:

    “The return of the mass met with resistance in many places and has been privately opposed by some bishops, who either have dragged their feet in implementing the decree or put it on the back burner, saying they had more pressing issues to deal with. Most Catholics regard the old mass as nostalgic, rigid and something that turns the clock back on the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which for some brought the church into modern times.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-pope-latin-idUSTRE74C29120110513

    Father Z, you had it exactly right. The liberals hate it. No hitter? Sounds like a home run to me!

  40. I guess I was expecting …. more. Like seminarians “must” learn the TLM for example.

  41. nanetteclaret says:

    Geoffrey –
    Just a few weeks ago I was conversing with a priest of our diocese (not my parish priest, see above) who said he loves Latin and says Mass in Latin privately on his day off. I asked, “Oh, so you say the EF?” and he said, “What’s that?” (!) I said “Extraordinary Form” and he said, “No, I don’t do that.” If priests don’t even use (or know) the terms EF and OF, no one else will have a clue (except for those of us who read this blog).

  42. APX says:

    I voted, “very good” and the part about seminarians has me curious about what that means for the seminary in my diocese, which does appear rather orthodox. I know my friend who attends that seminary is rejoicing on Facebook right now, along with other seminarians, so this MUST be a very good thing.

  43. cyejbv says:

    //Virgil says:
    13 May 2011 at 8:59 am
    Seminary training, as noted by Fr Z, seems an option. Rather, shouldn’t we assume that all priests know both forms well?//

    Well we should be able to assume that, at least I did assume it. Alas, in our parish it would be untrue: neither of our parish priests know both forms, neither knows Latin, and either did our ‘old’ priest (as in former, not aged.)

    So I voted “just okay” because… well, the music was never supposed to sound the way it does either, right? But it does. (This is for example. I know it’s not an issue here.)
    EF is always supposed to be ‘available’ right? But if the priest doesn’t know the form … Respectfully Gripe?! Mmm, I have gotten non-results. Story: I emailed my bishop several months ago about a fairly beefy concern- one of our priests gets up to open the door to the confessional, welcomes you in then disappears behind the screen. After confession, you are escorted out by Father who then welcomes the next in. There has been no response to my respectful gripe, none actually to any query or concern (3 so far, a small number in 7 years lest you think I have a grout list) so I can only imagine re-requesting EF now, or asking how UE may impact our diocese/parish…
    My son tells me that receiving a ‘cold finger’ is like getting the ‘cold shoulder’, except it’s being ignored via Facebook or text/email. Since I’ve never heard back, I believe I have received the cold finger from the Bishops office :)

    So, I just don’t anticipate change one in our parish and as excited as many of y’all may be I’m left a bit envious of your excitement, and big whoop-ed about how it will apply to my family and parish. However, if Fr Z says it’s a no maiden wicket over grand shut out whatever, I anticipate the best!

    And of course we are ever supportive of our Holy Father, giving thanks and praying for him.
    God Bless Pope Benedict XVI!

  44. s i says:

    It left too many “outs” for business as usual……….

  45. EWTN Rocks says:

    I voted “very good.” While not perfect, this is a HUGE step. I think you called in right Fr. Z – a “no hitter.” BTW, both the PODCAtZ and written analysis/explanation of the Instruction were extremely helpful and very much appreciated.

  46. The new instruction may not be perfect, but I find myself bouyed and encouraged by it.

    Also, whether or not the Extraordinary Form flourishes depends largely on our own efforts. Do we support with our prayers and checkbooks priests and religious orders who celebrate the Traditional Mass? Do we join traditional choirs and scholas? As we support good liturgy, do we do all we can to not appear as bitter traditionalists who gripe unnecessarily about every post-conciliar development? Do we welcome newcomers to the Traditional Latin Mass with smiles, or do we hiss at them because they might not be wearing a chapel veil? Do we also accept the fact that change is a part of life and even the Extraordinary Form can undergo some reform as the Holy See might deem appropriate as with new prefaces, etc.? Now that the Extraordinary Form has been completely liberated and has the full support of the Bishop of Rome, the ball is in our court.

    Exactly. We can’t just sit around and wait to be rescued. We in the pews need to do something, too. If we are going to ask priests in renegade dioceses to be pioneers and take arrows, we need to stand and take the arrows with them. We need to help them get what they need to train up and celebrate the E.F. properly. We need to get training materials into the hands of seminarians who want to learn it, even if we have to smuggle it in to them. We need to study the E.F. ourselves, and especially chant, so that we can provide choirs and help train our fellow Catholics in how to participate in the Mass. We need to attend consistently if we have the opportunity, and not give up when things look tough.

    And most of all, we need to support with prayer and penance priests and seminarians who want to recapture our lost heritage. If the liturgy currently stinks where you are, and you can’t avoid it, offer it up for the intention of reviving the Mass of tradition in your city.

  47. Acolythus says:

    Meh. It would be great, except that paragraphs 20-21 are too vague. In addition, I don’t like paragraphs 25-26 and 30-31.

  48. Kent says:

    I voted “just ok”. Without any sort of mandate, things will continue in our diocese as they have for years. There will be no TLM’s, Latin and chant will be noexistent, and we will continue to hold hands ad nauseum. Business as usual.