The ever alert long-time reader HE alerted me to a piece for your Brick By Brick file in Our Sunday Visitor.
We are here concerned with the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae about the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and the real necessity of training seminarians in the use of both sides of the Roman Rite. See here for some of my analysis.
Universae Ecclesiae 21 says:
LITERAL TRANSLATION:
21 – Ordinaries are strenuously (enixe) asked that they offer to clerics (clericis) to be trained up (instituendis) opportunity for acquiring adequate ars celebrandi… art of celebrating… in the Extraordinary Form, which point is has force above all (potissimum) for Seminaries, in which provision will be made that the students of holy things are to be suitably (convenienter) trained, by learning the Latin language, and, as additional circumstances demand it (adiunctis id postulantibus), the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite itself.
My emphases and comments.
New Vatican instruction clarifies importance of traditional Latin Mass
Coming four years after pope opened door to wider use of traditional Latin Mass, answering questionsBy Joseph O’Brien – OSV Newsweekly, 5/29/2011
Among those who have no doubts regarding the proper response to the pope’s instructions, Father James Wehner embraces with enthusiasm both the original 2007 apostolic letter and the new instruction. As rector of the only U.S. pontifical seminary, Pontifical College Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio, Father Wehner takes “very seriously our character of being pontifical.”
“So when I see a document coming from Rome,” he said, “I want to take a generous interpretation of the document, not a minimalistic — that is, restrictive — interpretation.”
Father Wehner sees the instruction as a way for Catholics — especially young Catholics studying for the priesthood — to better understand the extraordinary form of the Mass. [May this priest and his tribe thrive.]
While the extraordinary form is already celebrated weekly at the Josephinum, Father Wehner said, in light of Universae Ecclesiae, the seminary will further develop the optional training in the extraordinary form the seminary provides. [Optional? GAH.]
“It’s not just the performance or functioning component of the form, but also the theological and spiritual dimension; the liturgical motivation for providing the people of God the opportunity to be exposed to this form of the Roman Missal,” he said. [Hmmm…. “liturgical motivation”. Well… okay. Why not “ecclesiological”? “Spiritual”? Better yet, “pastoral”?]
At the same time, noting the need for a pastoral balance, Father Wehner acknowledges that not all of the Josephinum seminarians, representing more than 30 dioceses, will require such training. [I can’t see how he can say that, unless the seminarian already know it. ALL seminarians in the Latin Church should know the Latin Rite in both forms. Otherwise, can we say they are well-trained?]
“Some bishops, for example, might not see a pastoral need in their diocese, so their concern is that seminarians are not being forced into learning certain things before they’re ordained,” [?!?] he said. “Rather, they see their spiritual training and theological training having a particular priority.” [Hmmm…. liturgy is doctinal and spiritual. I don’t accept the dichotomy. Besides, you have to force seminarians to do all sorts of things. “Forcing” them to learn their Rite, isn’t really an imposition on their precious time. Moreover, UE 21 says that bishops are asked enixe to see to this. Regarding seminaries we see potissimum.]
Among young Catholics in general, Father Wehner said, there’s a pervasive enthusiasm for the sense of mystery they discover in the extraordinary form, which the new instruction will help channel. [Which Summorum Pontificum already channeled, thank you very much. However, Fr. W is right about this. There is indeed a “pervasive enthusiasm for the sense of mystery”. Of course that moves the whole thing into the realm of spirituality and doctrine, doesn’t it.]
“American Catholics, especially our younger people, live in a secular culture that tries to use reason and science alone to explain everything,” he said.
“These young Catholics,” said Father Wehner, “are inspired today by a sense of mystery. That’s not to say the extraordinary form is offering something better than the other liturgical experiences, [Wanna bet? Go down the street to the local suburban parish and say that again!] but it seems to touch younger Catholics in a way that their sense and pursuit of mystery, of awe, of sacredness, is somehow captured in the extraordinary form that is responding to their needs.”
WDTPRS KUDOS to Fr. Wehner.
I suspect that in talking off the cuff, to a reporter, he was perhaps being overly cautious. However, you can tell that his eyes are clear and his head is screwed on in the correct direction. His willingness to stress the points about young people and mystery were dead on.
Loading ...
Fr. Z.
I agree that he was likely being cautious. I fear too often folks enter into First Commandment territory, when critique-ing.
Your defending of the doctrinal and spiritual unity of the action makes me think of readings the Books of Moses in the context of the Book of Joshua, and the liturgical division that results when one does not.
+
Fr. Wehner is a terrific rector! He is also quite visible in parishes in Columbus, celebrating weekend Masses, and even some early morning daily Masses. I count my blessings that my son is privileged to be a student at the Josephinum with Fr. Wehner at the helm!
On a related note, two young men – who just graduated from the Josephinum and were ordained priests this past Saturday for the Columbus Diocese – each celebrated two “first Masses”, one Ordinary Form, one Extraordinary Form, over the weekend. I was able to attend the EF celebrated Monday morning (Memorial Day) as a Requiem Mass. How stunningly beautiful!
Re: Better yet, “pastoral”?]
I agree. The liturgy is not just for show but for the spiritual nourishment of the folks in the pew. If this form is more inspiring and effective, then it will be sought and requested. Then again, how will people know what’s out there unless they are exposed to it? Hence, a gradual introduction is in order. It is not surprising that the Josh is open to this – being Pontifical and all. What will be remarkable is if Berkeley does the same. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.
Fr. Wehner was the pastor of my territorial parish in Pittsburgh (St. Thomas More) before being appointed rector. I made a written request under Summorum Pontificum for an EF Mass at the parish and was flatly told to go pound sand. I still have that communication in my inbox. I hope this is a sign that he has had a change of heart.
My reaction was the same as Fr. Z’s – the same nitpicks, but also an appreciation that this kind of development would have been unthinkable ten or even five years ago. Unthinkable! Brick by brick, indeed.
I think we all feel that instruction in the traditional mass, to say nothing of Latin (Veterum Sapientiae!), should be mandatory in every single seminary. But that raises the question of *who* would do the instructing, since there simply are not enough competent and willing teachers available. But at the current rate, that won’t be the case much longer…and it is not unreasonable to think that many U.S. seminaries could indeed be providing mandatory instruction in the EF by, say, 2020.
Fr. Z,
Is it your opinion then that seminarians for the FSSP are not well-trained since they are taught only one form? You state many times that a seminarian is to know both forms to be considered such. ???
Without being facetious, the basic EF training can be stated in 6 words: Say the black, do the red.
The issue is with the decision to do it.
Based on the translation at the beginning of this post, it would seem to me that optional training is exactly what UE is asking for. Clerics, which includes the transitional deacons who will be learning how to celebrate the rites, are to be offered the opportunity to be “trained up.” In seminaries, training is to be provided “as additional circumstances demand it.”
“Fr. Z,
Is it your opinion then that seminarians for the FSSP are not well-trained since they are taught only one form? You state many times that a seminarian is to know both forms to be considered such. ???”
You asked Fr. Z, but I have an answer to this too. Saying the NO requires very very little training. There have been cases of FSSP priests leaving to say only the NO, or FSSP priests occasionally saying the NO … they do not need to go back to seminary to learn to do so! It is much much simpler, rubrics are very flexible, and the average experience of most Catholics is that they have seen it many times. Even if you have seen the TLM many times there are many things happening that we don’t really see or hear.
What training would a priest need exactly, if he could already say the TLM, in order say the NO? Just read the missal and do what it says.
Unless I’m missing something, it doesn’t appear that the Josephinum requires any Latin as part of their prerequisites or as part of their M.Div. requirements: http://www.pcj.edu/theology/academics.html (catalog, pages 10-11). Perhaps this is why the EF training is optional.
So why is it that Latin would not be a required in a Pontifical seminary?
Compare this sometime to what training for the priesthood looks like at St. John Vianney, in Denver under Abp. Chaput. I’d argue there is a world of difference.
This OSV article struck me as significant in two ways:
(1) An article so sympathetic to the TLM in such a mainstream Catholic publication, one that ordinary Catholics pick off the rack in mainstream parishes. Indeed, indeed I first saw this article in the hands of a very typical parishioner. Though perhaps I only imagined the look of surprise on his face as he read the headline “Vatican Instruction on the Importance of the Old Mass”.
(2) What a sea change since the fall of 2007, when Father Z had a number of posts about the opposition of the (former) rector and faculty of the Josephinum to Summorum Pontificum and the TLM, with allegations that seminarians then were chastised even for conservative attitudes toward the OF, let alone interest in the EF.
Both of which suggest to me that Pope Benedict’s program of leadership by persuasion may be working better than the ham-handed approach some urge.
The former pastor that I have talked about in my comments left our parish last year to become Dean of Men at the Josephinum. Although we miss him, its a good feeling to know that he is playing a part in training these up and coming priests. And kudos to Fr. Wehner……I like the way he thinks.
Devthakur:
“Saying the NO requires very very little training.”
But what if we imagine (as we ought to, I think) that the ordinary form of Mass should be celebrated with as much dignity as the extraordinary form of Mass, that it ought even be celebrated ad orientem, and even in Latin (at least with respect to the Liturgy of the Eucharist), with the requisite acoytes, crucifer, thurifers, MCs, et al? I think if we approach the ordinary form of Mass as we should be doing, then the contention that not much training is necessary becomes an erroneous one. I don’t think any priest could wing a solemn Novus Ordo Mass in Latin at the high altar.
Even a more typical celebration of the Mass versus populum in English certainly requires adequate training of our clergy if it isn’t to turn into a complete nightmare. This idea that the extraordinary form of Mass should get all the goodies and that the ordinary form should be left with the scraps is, I think, not helpful at all.
It is a fair point to suggest that Latin Rite priests should be trained to say both forms of the Mass, but they should be trained properly in both forms, not only in the extraordinary form.
If, however, it is unneccessary for today’s priests to be learned in Latin in order to celebrate the ordinary form of Mass in Latin, then the same should go for priests who desire to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass in Latin. I am not advocating, here, that seminaries should not compel seminarians to learn Latin, I only mean to point out one apparent hypocrisy in Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. Both documents seems to suggest that priests who want to celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form must have some competency in Latin, whereas I wonder if there is an equivalent document requiring the same of priests who wish to celebrate the ordinary form in Latin.
I would like to see the extraordinary form used a lot more everywhere. As a mother seeking to teach my children to go the way of God, I NEED THE HELP to express to them and impress on them the mystery and beauty that is just as real as the science the world insists on as the measure of all things.
Lame, anemic masses without beauty are really not a lot of help. I can SHOW my children the beauty of the genetic code and the logic in physics; I can easily show them why learning about the physical world is very important to living. I need help, however, in helping them grasp the UNSEEN realities which are even MORE important to living.
No, the EF should not be “optional” to the training of priests. Even if a particular priest did not bother using it they would still know the beauty of it and that might just make their NO masses a tiny bit more beautiful.
Yay to my local seminary! Glad to hear we’re doing it right. We have been getting some very good young priest grads from here lately and I am pleased to see it!
KAS: Even if a particular priest did not bother using it they would still know the beauty of it and that might just make their NO masses a tiny bit more beautiful.
More than just a “tiny bit”. Every single priest I know who’s learned the TLM celebrates the NO in a way markedly more precise and reverent than most priests I see with no knowledge of the TLM.
Centristian
I fear you may have missed Devthakur’s point slightly – the context of the post was that the NO requires very little training for a priest who already celebrates the older form.
To: JohnMa, having heard Fr. Wehner speak on a couple of occasions here in Columbus your comment surprises me. From what I gather, he “gets it.” Big time. Write it off as a busy pastor with many demands or perhaps he’s a prudent man who knows which battles to join and which to avoid (which may speak to some of Fr. Z’s observations). To amplify on Frank H.’s comment about our newly ordained diocesan priests here in Columbus, O. -– WOW! (And I’ll bet neither one of them has a tattoo – Sorry, couldn’t resist injecting a little Buckeye football gallows humor…) These two young men are outstanding and Fr. Wehner’s contribution to their formation should be recognized and applauded.
As an alumnus, I can say things have definitely changed at the Josh.
Lateratim (brick-by-brick).
“Father Wehner sees the instruction as a way for Catholics — especially young Catholics studying for the priesthood — to better understand the extraordinary form of the Mass.”
Summorum Pontificum, the Instruction to it, the lifting of the excommunications are all ancillary to the Pope’s ultimate objective, in my opinion. He wants to infuse into the Church traditionalism lost after Vatican II.
I love our Pope, but I think his praxis is misguided. He starts from the macro to the micro, rather than vice versa. He starts his praxis from Vatican II and works back to a hermeneutic of “continuity” with the past. Rather, I think one should start back, and look forward, and seen in Vatican II a hermeneutic of sorts, but one of irrelevance. It is not sinful to say an irrelevant, pastoral council, is irrelevant; even Pope Benedict XVI has said, that “in the final analysis” some councils are simple worthless. Well, Vatican II fits that bill to the T!
Again, the problem is that so many liberals label that worthless council a SUPER COUNCIL! I personally had a Monsignor wag his finger in my face, telling me that deny one facet of Vatican II was heresy! I’m a nice, diminutive kind of fellow, so I just laughed my ass off to myself! This poor fellow doesn’t know “come-here” from “sick-him”!
I have a similar impression of Fr. Wehner as JohnMa. I have attended Masses offered by him, heard him preach, and had a couple of conversations with him. My impression is that he is one of those fairly orthodox priests that isn’t overly traditional yet isn’t heterodox. Honestly I always took his approach as more charismatic (not in the sense of the renewal but in the typical sense of the word) than traditional. I’m very surprised to hear of his approval of the traditional Mass yet even in this article his appreciation for it doesn’t come across as entirely enthusiastic but sort of as something he thinks he ought to do because it came from Rome, meaning it shouldn’t be wholeheartedly put forward as something immensely meaningful yet it shouldn’t be disregarded either. It’s just my two cents for what it is worth. I do think he is a fairly good priest, a holy priest, all things considered. It’s definitely great to hear they are at least making the traditional Mass an option.
Animas vestras castificantes in oboedientia veritatis ad fraternitatis amorem non fictum, ex corde invicem diligite attentius, renati non ex semine corruptibilii sed incorruptibili per verbum Dei vivum et permanens; quia “omnis caro ut fenum, et omnis gloria eius tamquam flos feni. Exaruit fenum, et flos decidit; verbum autem Domini manet in aeternum.” Hoc est autem verbum, quod evengalizatum est in vos.
uptoncop:
Even if Devthakur thinks that the Ordinary Form requires very, very, little training, he did not address the central controversy which TrueLiturgy raised. Namely, if Fr. Z believes that a rector should ask the seminarians to undergo training in both forms of the Roman Rite, then the FSSP no less than the Josephinum should be called out on not providing sufficient liturgical training to their seminarians!
I disagree with Fr. Z (this would be a most rare event), if Fr. Z is advocating that a seminary training diocesan priests require training in the EF. A rector should provide the opportunity for seminarians to be familiar with both forms of the Roman Rite, but not necessarily order the seminarians to know how to offer Mass in each form. I think the rector should provide training in the Extraordinary Form, according to UE, but should not require and mandate that all seminarians go through this.
First, there are seminarians who do not want to learn the OF, and seek the option of the FSSP. That is fine, and the OF should not be forced upon them.
But, sorry to bring up reality from the other side of the coin. There are also students who do not want to learn the EF, for whatever reason, and this is why they applied for and are attending a seminary which will train them in the OF. Neither should they be forced to learn the EF. That they should have the opportunity, yes. That they should be forced to, no.
If the approval of the statutes of the FSSP and the ICK have taught anything, it is that the Church grants men the freedom to exercise ministry in only one form of the Roman Rite. If we are not going to beat the FSSP on the head with OF Mass demands, neither should we do the same to those men who wish to exercise ministry in the OF alone.
And returning to Devthakur’s point–I don’t know if he is a priest, but I am. I offer Mass in the OF and I did not find it to require very, very little training. To get up and offer one Mass, maybe. But if you plan to offer the OF Mass for the rest of your life, you are going to have to adjust to a very different calendar, with very different rubrics, and you are going to have to share the altar constantly with deacons and laity who each come with their own set of rubrics and training.
The OF is simple and streamlined, compared to the EF, but in many ways, far more complicated in its celebration, because unlike the EF, it comes with a far more demanding audience that is at the same time far less catechized in the Faith.
“I hope this is a sign that he has had a change of heart.”
“My impression is that he is one of those fairly orthodox priests that isn’t overly traditional yet isn’t heterodox… I’m very surprised to hear of his approval of the traditional Mass yet even in this article his appreciation for it doesn’t come across as entirely enthusiastic but sort of as something he thinks he ought to do because it came from Rome”
File this under “Fruits of Summorum Pontificum”! I’ve heard this story quite a few times – Fr. ‘X’, orthodox but not traddie, faithful to Rome but perhaps mildly dismissive of those “odd” folks who like the ‘Latin Mass’… Then – 7-7-07 – SP hits the streets . “The Holy Father wants this so maybe I should look into it” becomes “wow, I didn’t know there were so many changes, the old Mass is really quite beautiful” and finally “hey, this is what a priest is FOR!”
Obviously I’m talking about a relatively small number of priests, but it just goes to show why we needed SP. Not only did it loose the bounds for those who already wanted to celebrate the TLM but were impeded, but it served as a goad to move some good priests toward a greater openness to the rite, if only because they accepted it as the will of the Holy Father. Once they were exposed to it, it began to speak for itself. Brick-by-brick!
I also like the way Fr. Wehner thinks! I wish he could have a chat w/ our pastor, who said to me that “whenever anything comes from Rome, we close our eyes”. It will likely be a cold day in you-know-where if there is a TLM anywhere in the province of Quebec, Canada. Sad but that is the case right now. We can always pray for a miracle! (Maybe Brother Andre can help out here.)
Chloesmom:
The FSSP has a house in Quebec City. They’re also in Ottawa, if you’re closer to that side of the province. But, Quebec being such a big land area, you might be a long way from either place. There might be other places with the extraordinary form.
–Dan
I don’t presume to answer for Fr Z, but regarding the question of FSSP priests learning both forms, I can only say that their apostolate does not require them to say the NO, so there is no need for them to learn a form that they will never use. A diocesan priest MAY be approached to offer the EF, therefore it’s good to know it for pastoral reasons. Besides, what better way to get comfortable with Latin, the language of the Church, than by using it in the liturgy?
moconnor:
If what is “good” for “pastoral reasons” is the criteria by which we ask priests to be familiar with the OF or the EF, then there is even greater urgency for the FSSP to learn the OF, since there are many more Catholics who attend Mass in that form of the liturgy. It is the very demands of the OF and the sheer number of Catholics attending in the OF that make it very impractical and unrealistic to think that most diocesan priests could be expected to have time for the EF in their Sunday schedules.
But let’s be blunt and honest. The reason the FSSP apostolate does not require them to learn the OF is not because of numbers or pastoral demand. It is because they do not wish to learn the OF, to the point that if an FSSP priest or seminarian seeks ministry in the OF, they are asked to leave the FSSP.
And in a day and age when the Church says that it’s all right to never celebrate OF Mass, because you do not wish to do that, it is only reasonable to expect that diocesan priests will likewise express that they do not wish to offer Mass in the EF. Such priests will tell you correctly that they can still offer Mass in Latin, of course, but they will do so only, and exclusively, in the OF.
You see, in the very logic which allows the FSSP to exist, you must also allow that the diocesan priest can be approached to offer Mass in the EF, and with clear conscience can respond “my apostolate does not require that (offering Mass in the EF)” with no more remorse than an FSSP priest says, “my apostolate does not require that” when approached to offer OF Mass.
The diocesan priest must respect the EF Mass as one of the forms of the Roman Rite, and part of her classical heritage, and should be familiar in their seminary training with how this Mass is offered. But so long as the Church does not require all of her Latin-rite priests to offer Mass in BOTH forms, there are no grounds by which to demand that a seminarian both learn the EF and know how to offer it.
Fr. Sotelo,
I find your argumentation to be persuasive.
Hello Fr. Sotelo,
But let’s be blunt and honest. The reason the FSSP apostolate does not require them to learn the OF is not because of numbers or pastoral demand. It is because they do not wish to learn the OF, to the point that if an FSSP priest or seminarian seeks ministry in the OF, they are asked to leave the FSSP.
With respect, however, it’s more than a question of the desires or inclinations of the FSSP priests. The apostolate of the FSSP is to provide a full sacramental life for traditional-oriented Catholics. And those traditional-oriented Catholics tend to be even more conservative than their priests, and therefore even more reserved in their attitudes toward the OF missal. In short, known celebration of the OF by an FSSP priest could endanger his mission to traditionalists in his flock (or who might be considering joining his flock).
This may suggest that there’s an even deeper problem among FSSP faithful in regards to their attitude to the sacraments of the OF. But whether or not that is the case, we have to realize the difficult position in which FSSP (and ICKSP) priests usually find themselves.
Athelstan: You make a good point, that if FSSP priests offered the OF also, it could alienate the faithful for whom they minister. I completely support their ministry and charism in the EF (and realize that it is more than a question of desires), and because of that call to work in the EF, don’t believe it is appropriate or practical to impose upon them the further burdens of the OF.
But then, I understand that there are priests and seminarians who also will say, “my desire to work only in the OF goes beyond my personal desires and inclinations. While respecting the EF and the heritage of the Church, there are theological and practical reasons for which I do not wish the further burdens of the EF to be imposed upon me.” I would like to see the same understanding and sympathies applied to the FSSP applied also to those priests (and seminarians) who wish to minister only and exclusively in the OF.
I should add that I feel personally sad and disappointed that a seminarian would not wish to offer the EF Mass, but I would respect that decision, until such a time that the Church orders all her Latin rite priests to be prepared to minister in either form of the Roman Rite.
Fr Sotelo,
In fact, diocesan seminarians don’t learn to celebrate the OF. They learn a vernacularized, versus populum way of celebrating it. To learn to say the OF, a priest must be proficient in Latin and comfortable saying mass ad orientem.
An FSSP priest celebrates only the EF because that is the reason the Fraternity exists. I personally know FSSP priests who would have remained in their dioceses if their bishops had not given them the run around about using the 1962 Missal a few times a week. So if you’re concerned that the FSSP has proportionately too many priests for the number of people wanting the TLM, you might want to cast a glance at the bishops.
robtbrown: Good point about the OF. Of course, the Holy Father is not really giving example by offering Latin, ad orientem OF Masses as his usual modus operandi, so what can be expected of the average, diocesan priest? As for the FSSP, again, I agree. The EF is the reason they exist, but that does not stop them from exercising pastoral initiatives which go beyond the reason for their existence. But as I’ve said, I have no need to bang them on the head with demands which go beyond the fine work they are already doing.
Fr Sotelo,
Priests who habitually celebrate versus populum, vernacular masses are doing what they were trained to do. Most went to seminary in good faith but were poorly formed–no Latin and very little theology among other deficiencies. As much as I would like to see the pope celebrate a TLM, I think it’s more important that he not isolate himself from these priests. I do think, however, that Latin programs should be restored in priestly formation ASAP.
There are currently about 70 priests in the US FSSP, enough to furnish each US diocese (about 200) with one third of a priest. I’m not sure what other pastoral initiatives would you want from them.
The apostolate of almost every religious institute or, in this case, priestly fraternity is almost never parish work. If there aren’t enough diocesan priests to staff parishes, that is not a problem for religious orders, which in the main were not founded for parish work. IMHO, the presence of religious priests in parishes in the US has been overdone to the point that the orders have lost their mojo.