What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

I received a note from a friend of many years in Rome.

I don’t know how many times have I called them to alert them to unbelievable errors in their transcripts and translations, to no avail, despite their reassurances after having been on the phone forever being passed from one extension to another. I have come to the conclusion that they are either unbelievably unprofessional or they do it on purpose. I could translate better than they do and put everything online within hours from the Holy Father’s actual speech/homily/whatever. It takes MONTHS now to have lousy versions of anything put online, IF anything at all!

I thought the Vatican had at last taken care to put online on its very own site the version of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum … in all languages.  Instead, nothing.  On vatican.va the Motuo Proprio is accessible only in Latin and (LISTEN, LISTEN) in Hungarian.  (Find here the page of vatican.va dedicated to the all the Motu Proprio documents of Benedict XVI.)  [Sort of like Spanky and Our Gang have a Website.]

However, as the blog Una Fides notes, "once the Latin text is clicked it is enough to try a little game, that it to say, change to the "l" of the last part of the "_lt.html" to a "i" and, voilà, there magically appears the hidden Italian text. (read here: "games and magic tricks in the Vatican").  [I tried this and it didn’t work.  Someone at the switch in the Vatican office that runs the site probably changed this, no doubt from sheer embarrassment.]

I don’t know if the Italian version (as that in French, Portuguese and Spanish) of the Motu Proprio doesn’t appear on Vatican.va through negligence or in order purposefully to block the diffusion of the text.  I know, however, that to act with such superficiality does nothing other than provoke the suspicion of those who sustain that there is a part of the Church which is blocking the diffusion and application of the Motu Proprio, a disposition strongly desired by Benedict XVI.

UPDATE:

Someone sent me the cached page of the Italian:

From the NCR that’s actually Catholic, the National Catholic Register, comes this on the increasingly wide-spread use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.


My emphases and comments.

Normalizing the Extraordinary Form
Priests Are Free to Celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass at Any Time

by Thomas Wehner

The Vatican has issued a directive to a Polish diocese that emphasizes the freedom of priests to celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form whenever they choose.  [At the time of the release of SP I said often in writings and interviews that this Motu Proprio was unique in that it stressed the rights of priests... for a change.  Summorum Pontificum is a great gift to priests, especially.  Learning the older form of Holy Mass teaches priests more about who they are and what Holy Mass is.  In turn that affects all the other spheres of their activity.]

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei made the clarification in January in a series of responses to questions from a Polish diocese, which sought clarification regarding the use of the traditional Latin Mass. The answers, which came to public attention in mid-February, concerned Pope Benedict’s 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, issued “motu proprio” (on his own initiative).

However, the Vatican stresses that the clarification is addressed to a particular group and is “not a set of guidelines.” [Right.  This clarification was also made here on the blog under that entry.  A canonist helped with some clarifications as well.] Officials are still working on a comprehensive set of guidelines on Summorum Pontificum, which are expected to be published soon.

Two points of the ruling are considered most significant: A Mass in the extraordinary form “may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the ordinary form,” and a parish priest “may schedule a public Mass in the extraordinary form on his own accord.” [It is hardly to be imagined that directives such as these are not also to be applied every where.]

Another response also stipulates that the calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Roman Missal “may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Roman Missal in Masses in the extraordinary form.”  [Something which could be a disappointment to many.  However, let us not forget that the Holy See is presently engaged in talks with the SSPX.]

Michael Dunnigan, chairman of Una Voce America , said the commission’s response “forcefully reaffirms both the plain meaning of Summorum Pontificum and also the rights of the laity and clergy [especially] who are devoted to the traditional Mass.”

The first response begins: “If there is no other possibility, because for instance in all churches of a diocese the liturgies of the Easter triduum are already being celebrated in the ordinary form, the liturgies of the Easter triduum may, in the same church in which they are already celebrated in the ordinary form, be additionally celebrated in the extraordinary form, if the local ordinary allows.”  [Which some will find too restrictive, but which is a clear signal that Summorum Pontificum is not as restrictive as liberals claimed.]

The second response clarifies that a Mass in the usus antiquior (extraordinary form) “may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the ordinary form.” The question contextualizes that in many churches Sunday Masses are more or less scheduled continually, leaving free only very inconvenient mid-afternoon slots, but this is merely context, the question posed being general. The answer leaves the matter “to the prudent judgment of the parish priest,” and emphasizes “the right of a stable group to assist at Mass in the extraordinary form.”  [However, the flip side is that the Novus Ordo must also be offered, for those who desire to attend it.]

In the third response, it states that a parish priest “may schedule a public Mass in the extraordinary form on his own accord (i.e. without the request of a group of faithful) for the benefit of the faithful including those unfamiliar with the usus antiquior.” The response of the commission here is identical to No. 2.  [But this is a huge deal.]

Fourth, it adds that “the calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Missale Romanum may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Missale Romanum in Masses in the extraordinary form.”

Lastly, it states: “While the liturgical readings (epistle and Gospel) themselves have to be read by the priest (or deacon/subdeacon) as foreseen by the rubrics, a translation to the vernacular may afterwards be read also by a layman.”

Regarding the second and third responses, Dunnigan said that, strictly speaking, they should “not have been necessary at all, because the language of Summorum Pontificum already was clear.” [Perhaps not.  Some clarifications are necessary in the case of most juridical documents.] However, he added that in the United States the faithful have experienced the same type of obstruction to celebration of the traditional Latin Mass as has happened in Poland.

“Some leaders in the Church seem determined to relegate the traditional Mass to second-class status by restricting the pastor’s prerogative to revise his parish’s Mass schedule,” said Dunnigan. “I am grateful to the commission for making clear that these obstacles find no support in Summorum Pontificum and amount to unjust restrictions on the rights of the faithful.”  [Now the PCED needs to write a similar letter to a priest in the USA.]

The last two responses may not be as rigid as they seem. A committee of Ecclesia Dei is currently studying what parts of the new Missal can be used in the extraordinary form and, although not yet certain, it is probable that saints canonized since 1962 will be incorporated into the 1962 Missal. (There are already communities where the 1970 sanctoral cycle is followed with the commission’s tacit approval, such as the Abbey of Fontgombault and all its daughterhouses, including Clear Creek in Hulbert, Okla.)

This means, for instance, that the two forms of the Mass could celebrate saints on the same days, something which would be in line with Pope Benedict XVI’s accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum. [The calendar situation really needs work.]

The Holy Father wrote: “The two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: New saints and some of the new prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.”  [Thus, the interdict on the use of these elements in the older form of Mass really must be temporary while the details get worked out.]

The directive on liturgical readings may also be looser than it might appear in these responses, as there are already communities using the traditional Latin Mass with the new lectionary in the vernacular. [Where?  Will they have to stop?]

The Vatican has long been concerned about resistance to allowing stable groups of faithful and priests to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass.

Although it believes these obstructions are beginning to die down, Ecclesia Dei still plans on issuing a “clarification document” on Summorum Pontificum.

Rumors have long circulated that the Vatican has been drawing up such a document and that it was delayed because some officials found problems with the drafts. These recent responses, apparently issued with minimal consultation, are therefore not meant to replace the forthcoming document.

When my friend the nearly ubiquitous fair-minded John L Allen does an interview, it is usually a good one.   Try to overlook the fact that he writes for dissenters’ central, the ultra-liberal fishwarp, the National Catholic Reporter. There is a companion piece.

My emphases and comments:

Q & A with Msgr. Guido Marini, papal liturgist
Mar. 03, 2010
By John L Allen Jr

Monsignor Guido Marini, Benedict XVI’s Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, is one of those Vatican figures who normally operate in the shadows. [Even when viewed by thousands.]  He’s the guy who organizes the Masses and other liturgical events over which the pope presides, so he generally attracts notice only when he happens to be standing near his boss when the TV cameras light up.

Marini took a big step into the spotlight back in January, however, when he gave a speech to a meeting of English-speaking priests in Rome, in which he advocated a liturgical “reform of the reform.” [Which was not a new idea.] Those comments unleashed a wave of speculation in the blogosphere and in liturgical circles about a possible new overhaul of Catholic worship under Benedict XVI, which critics would [hysterically] read as “rolling back the clock” on reforms associated with the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

Marini sat down for an exclusive interview with NCR in his Vatican office on Feb. 9, to explain what he had in mind by a “reform of the reform.”  [This is a term that has been around for a while, notably in circles around Fr. Joseph Fessio.  At one point people were proposing, inter alia, that we go back to the actual mandates of Sacrosanctum Concilium and do another version of Holy Mass based strictly on the few things the Council Father’s actually mandated.  Great idea, but highly impractical, for that would have introduced yet another "Roman" form into the mix.  What Joseph Ratzinger wanted, and wants, is a way to jump start the heart "organic development" which had an infarct when the Consilium exceeded its mandate and, alas with the approval of Paul VI, imposed on the Church am artificially liturgy created from bits and pieces on their desktops and by committees.  Emancipating the use of the older, pre-Conciliar form of Mass is part of Papa Ratzinger’s project.  And this all takes great patience.]

Read John Allen’s news story here: Liturgist: Pope aims to ‘propose’ practices

In a nutshell, Marini’s message was that under Benedict XVI, the winds are clearly blowing in a more traditional direction, but anyone expecting a dramatic lurch one way or the other is likely to be disappointed – this pope prefers to operate by “proposing,” Marini said, rather than “imposing.”

The following are excerpts from the interview with Marini. (Marini spoke in Italian, and was given an opportunity to review the English translation of his remarks.)

* * *

[Q:] What did you have in mind on January 6 when you talked about a “reform of the reform”?

To tell the truth, I didn’t use this expression as something of my own, but as a phrase used by several others for many years, including, of course, the former Cardinal Ratzinger. I didn’t want to get into the details of what various people might mean by the expression, because there are different ways of understanding it. I believe that [NB] the best way, the most correct way, to understand the expression is certainly not to reject the reforms determined by the Second Vatican Council. [Though we didn’t really get the reforms mandated by the Council… let that pass…]  Rather, it’s to take another step forward in the comprehension and experience of an authentic liturgical spirit, [An echo of the title of Joseph Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy, named purposefully after Romano Guardini’s famous book, in which Ratzinger called for a new liturgical movement.] carrying together the inheritance of our tradition with the reform that the council accomplished, in a spirit of development in continuity.

[Q:] Of course, the former Cardinal Ratzinger also once warned against new upheavals in the liturgy, saying that we need a period of stability. Do you agree?

Yes, yes … I’m fully in agreement! I don’t believe that the liturgy of the church needs any radical changes or distortions, in part because it’s not in the logic of this spirit of development in continuity. I believe instead that it’s a matter of consolidating what already exists, in a more authentic way, according to the true mind of the church.

[Q: ] There is no “rollback” on Vatican II?  [A softball, but necessary for the liberal readers of NCR who can be more than obtuse on this point.]

Of course not. A ‘rollback’ wouldn’t make sense, because it’s not how the life of the church works. The life of the church moves forward in time, always developing but without losing anything from its life of either the past or the present. [Well… we do lose things, but not essential things.]

[Q:] You spoke about some more traditional touches in Pope Benedict’s liturgies, such as placing a cross on the altar and giving communion on the tongue. If I understand correctly, you’re not suggesting that these are harbingers of new liturgical policy for the whole church. [Note the word "policy".]

The pope has proposed, and proposes, these solutions. It’s the style of the present pope to proceed not though impositions but propositions. The idea is that, little by little, [brick by brick] all this may be welcomed, considering the true significance that certain decisions and certain orientations may have. That seems to me a typical touch of Pope Benedict.

Whether sometime in the future, what the pope’s presenting in this propositional way should become more of a disciplinary norm, we don’t know and can’t say. Certainly, the style at the moment is to offer proposals for the celebrative style of the church. Nevertheless, when the Holy Father proposes, it is not simply his personal preference, but a precise and clear orientation for the whole church.  [Okay… note that answer.  This is not just Joe Bagofdoughnuts making the proposal.  This is Peter.  Also, this is a Pope who knows a great deal about liturgy.  Someone with a true Catholic sense and sense of faith, a man of the Church, will listen and follow these directions.]

[Q.] That raises a broader question. Benedict XVI clearly has a strong liturgical vision, but to date hasn’t launched any sweeping liturgical reform. You seem to have already suggested why not: His strategy is to propose rather than impose. Is that right?

I would say so, yes. It seems to me that he has a vision rooted in great faith in the life of the church, which of course has its own sense of time and its own rhythms. Given certain realities, as well as the times in which we live, [Not a small issue!] sometimes things can’t just be imposed quickly. They have to slowly enter into the way of thinking of the church, its way of feeling, its climate. Within that, maybe one can eventually arrive at providing a more precise disciplinary norm, but perhaps first it is helpful to shape a climate of opinion.  [The fact that we have a new generation of leaders coming in is the big factor here.]

[Q.] You have to shape the culture of the church before its legislation? [A good point.]

I believe so, even if the two things obviously have to go together, because disciplinary norms also help to shape a culture. At the same time, there’s a process of cultural formation that can lead to disciplinary norms. I believe the balance between these two moments has to be kept in mind.

[Q.] The new edition of the Roman Missal in English is about to come out. Have you seen it?

No. As you know, that’s a job for the Congregation for Divine Worship. I know that it’s moving forward.

[Q.] Will the pope use the new missal when he’s in England in September?

I don’t know, because it hasn’t yet been decided. We don’t know if by then it will already be definitively approved. Certainly if it’s approved in the meantime, it would be the text he uses.

[Q.] The new translation has sometimes been criticized for using unfamiliar terms that may not be readily accessible to people. [NB] Do you agree with the logic that sometimes a kind of ‘sacral speech’ is a good thing, in order to lift people out of their daily experience?

[NB] I believe so, yes.  [Sorry, Bp. Truatman.] The liturgy certainly has a popular dimension, but it also has its own language and its own frame of reference. We sometimes need help in considering that in the liturgical space, in the climate of the liturgy, we effectively enter another dimension which is not our every-day world. The pope often speaks of the liturgy as a kind of heavenly space, which is certainly not detached from the world, but in fact offers a new way to live the experience of the world. [One imbued with mystery.] This all has to go together, and sometimes it can be expressed in language that isn’t the speech of everyday life, but the language of prayer and spirituality, which has its own beauty.

[Q.] With his 2007 motu proprio, Benedict XVI authorized wider celebration of the old Latin Mass, the so-called “Tridentine Rite,” alongside the new. Now that the dust has settled on that decision, where do things stand?

In my opinion, what’s important [NB] now is that the two forms of the Roman rite look upon one another with great serenity, [I am not convinced of that, but… ]  realizing that both belong to the life of the church and that neither is the only true, authentic expression. But rather, the two forms of Roman Rite can mutually enrich each other. [Remember that "organic development" point, above.] This must be the path along which we should walk, because perhaps we haven’t yet truly arrived at this attitude of serenity and welcome in daily life.

For a long time people have wondered about the "Instruction" that was to come from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (now under the CDF) on the Holy Father’s "emancipation proclamation" Summorum Pontificum.

For some time I wondered whether it would be a good thing to have one.  But over time I have come around to the idea a bit more, given that we have seen good leadership from the revised PCED.

I found this on Rinascimento Sacro in turn from Panorama.  My translation with a bit of editing.

Instruction on Summorum Pontificum should be imminent.

[...] The arrival also of the instruction of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei for the interpretation and application of the Pope’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum…. is in the homestretch.  At about three years since the release of the controversial papal document, groups of traditionalists have again denounced obstructionism by some bishops against the celebration of Mass with the Tridentine rite.  To this are joined points of doubt and differences of interpretation of the norms.  The awaited instruction should give the final word to these divisions.  [Ignazio Ingrao]

I noticed in John Zmirak’s article on "trads" that he picked up on a phrase I have been using for quite a while regarding Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.  I have been calling SP Pope Benedict’s "emancipation proclamation".

Zmirak wrote in his piece that "many of our bishops answered it with liturgical Jim Crow."

I guess that means that those who don’t want to implement Summorum Pontificum "segregationists".

I have been having an internet nightmare for a few days, so I am pretty sure someone may have picked up on this already.

I have had many discussions with priest friends about the flexibility with the provisions of Summorum Pontificum so that priests are able to make the best pastoral applications within their own contexts.

For example, I have had good discussions with the great Fr. Tim Finigan about whether priests could, on their own initiative – that is, without requests from a group – add a TLM to the existing schedule or substitute a Novus Ordo Mass with a TLM.   We both agreed that, yes, Summorum Pontificum allows for such a thing, though that is not spelled out in the document itself.

Yah, I know.   But keep reading.

Now comes this from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.   The Commission’s Secretary, Msgr. Pozzo, replied to a letter sent from a priest in Poland about similar questions.

A kid reader did some transcription for us from the Polish site Nowy Ruch Liturgiczny, and another sent some images of the letters in question.

Let’s have a look with my usual emphases and comments.

From GERMAN:

Rev. Krzysztof Tyburowski
(Moderatore Diocesano dei Fedeli
Lefati alla Forma Straordinaria della Liturgia)
[postal address left out]

To:
Pontificia Commissione "Ecclesia Dei"
[postal address left out]

Laudetur Iesus Christus!

On behalf of many faithful in Poland, I would ask the Pontifical
Commission "Ecclesia Dei" for an answer to some important questions.
The questions relate to the celebration of the Holy Mass in the
extraordinary rite, and with no small difficulties that arise in this
context again and again.

1. In the case whe there is no other option, i.e. when no church is
available specifically for the extraordinary form, is it allowed to
celebrate the Holy Week Liturgy also (additionally) in the
extraordinary form, in a church (parish church or a rectorate), in
which the Triduum sacrum is usually celebrated in the ordinary form?
The difficulty relates specifically to the situation that in many
places the Holy Week liturgy is celebrated practically in all churches
in the new form. Is such celebration an obstacle for celebrating the
liturgy in the extraordinary form?  [The problem is that normally you should only have the Triduum ceremonies once.  An exception could be, I believe, an additional Good Friday service for pastoral reasons.  If you can have the Triduum only once, then in theory you could not have both Ordinary and Extraordinary Form.]

2. Can the holy Mass in the extraordinary form be scheduled for the
hour when until now holy Mass was celebrated in the ordinary form? The
question concerns a situation when Sunday Masses in the new form are
celerated non-stop until the afternoon. To meet the needs of the
faithful who ask for the celebration in the extraordinary form, one
has to schedule it on liturgicaly unassigned hours of the afternoon (1
to 3 PM), which presents a significant additional logistical burden
for the staff (sacristan and the like), and is difficult to make
compatible with the normal rhythm of a Christian Sundays, especially
for families.  [In other words, can you change one of the regularly scheduled Novus Ordo Masses to a TLM.]

3. Can a pastor or another priest celebrate publicly of his own accord
the extraordinary form – apart from the usual regular use of the new
form – "so that all faithful – both young and old – become familiar
with the older rite and can benefit from its appreciable beauty and
transcendence"?  [That is the key: "on his own accord"... without a group having asked.   This is very important.]

4. Is it permissible to use calendar, readings or prefaces from the
Roman Missal of 1970 for a holy Mass in the extraordinary form instead
of the corresponding texts of the Roman Missal of 1962?  [I believe this was raised at other times.   I have in the past given a hesitant yes.  We shall see.]

5. Can an ordinary lay person, during a holy Mass in the extraordinary
form, recite the readings in the vernacular, after the priest (who
also comands that language) has read the texts in Latin?

Thank you in advance for the effort of consideration and answering the
presented questions.
Connected in Christ

x. Krzysztof Tyburowski


————————
PCED answers: [My translation, without the usual florid curial embellishments.]
————————



Dal Vaticano, 20 gennaio 2010
From the Vatican 20 January 2010
Pontificia Commissio
"Ecclesia Dei"

Prot. N. 13/2007

Most Reverend Father,

With your letter of 5 January, last, you posed some questions to this Pontifical Commission concerning the application of the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum", to which I respond as follows:

ad 1: Celebration also in the Extraordinary Form is possible according to the judgment of the Ordinary of the place. [While this isn’t freedom to make the decision at the parish level, now no bishop or other authority can say that Summorum Pontificum forbids the Triduum with the 1962MR even where the Ordinary Form is also observed.  That is important.  It is possible to have both.]

ad 2 and ad 3: The question is remanded to the prudent judgment of the parish priest [pastor, parochus] it being understood that the stable group of faithful have the right to assist at the celebration of Mass in the Extraordinary Form.  [This is very significant.  YES, a parish priest can change one of the Novus Ordo Masses to a TLM.  He doesn’t have to add one.  Why?  Because people have the right to have also the Extraordinary Form.  Moreover, the priest can decide to have a TLM even if there are not requests from the faithful because he thinks it is in the best interest to have one available.  The flip side is that the parish priest must also be sure that there is a Novus Ordo Mass remaining on the schedule, because people also have a right to attend Mass that way.]

ad 4: negative.  [Okay!  This surprises me a bit.  It seems to walk back the famous guidelines we wrote when Card. Mayer was President of the PCED lo those many years ago.  So, you cannot mix calendars or use readings, prefaces, etc.  Interesting.]

ad 5: The readings of the Epistle and Gospel of the Mass must be read by the same priest celebrant, or by a deacon, in the cases foreseen by the liturgy; after their reading, however, the translations can be read by a layman.  [What this does not resolve is whether the priest or deacon can read or sing the readings in the vernacular without having first done this in Latin.  But that was not the question posed to the Commission.]

[etc.]

Mons. Pozzo
Secretary

To #4: I would want to raise the following question.

Since saints such as St. Maximilian Kolbe was canonized after the implementation of the Novus Ordo. 

On 14 August would you be able to say, using the 1962MR, a Mass for St. Maximillian Kolbe using just the Common for Martyrs?   Would you be able to use the Common for Martyrs with the Latin Collect approved by the Congregation?

This is something which needs clarification.

Here is something quite interesting for your Brick By Brick file.

I picked up from the intrepid Andrea Tornielli that Una Voce Malaga has been doing some arithmetic.

Apparently, world wide, since summorum Pontificum went into effect some 138 cardinals or bishops have been celebrant for or presided at Holy Mass or Vespers in the older, traditional form of the Roman Rite.

Il sito spagnolo di Una Voce Malaga, rilanciato a sua volta dal blog Messa in latino, ha stilato un puntuale elenco con i nomi – divisi per Paesi – dei cardinali e dei vescovi che hanno celebrato o assistito alla forma “straordinaria” della messa secondo il messale romano antico (o comunque di vespri solenni secondo l’antica forma) dopo la liberalizzazione stabilita da Benedetto XVI con il motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Questi i dati: Germania 3, Argentina 3, Australia 6, Belgio 1, Brasile 4, Canada 6, Cile 2, Cina 1, Colombia 1, Danimarca 1, Filippine 3, Francia 17, Gabon 2, Italia 15, Irlanda 2, Kazakhstan 1, Liechtenstein 1, Monaco 1, Nigeria 2, Nuova Zelanda 1, Polonia 7, Regno Unito 9, Repubblica Ceca 1, Spagna 4, Sri Lanka 1, Svizzera, 2, Ungheria 2, Usa 33.  Dei 138 ben 20 sono cardinali, 4 spagnoli, 4 americani e 4 italiani (Antonelli, Piovanelli, Poggi e Scola). I vescovi italiani sono 11. Guardando a questi risultati si potrebbe dire che è ancora molto poco. Ma credo che lo sguardo più giusto sia quello del lungo periodo: è cominciato – nonostante le difficoltà, le tensioni, i dinieghi anche clamorosi, le polemiche mediatiche, le rigidità e le rivendicazioni – un processo positivo, nella linea voluta da Benedetto XVI, quella della riconciliazione e dell’arricchimento reciproco fra i fedeli che seguono la messa nelle due forme ora previste del Rito romano. E’ un segno, ancora piccolo ma incoraggiante, dei frutti che sta portando il modo di governare di Papa Benedetto: quello dell’esempio, dei piccoli passi, di “riforme” che per essere tali devono partire anche dal basso e non possono venire soltanto imposte dall’alto.

Bishop by bishop, folks! 

I was alerted this is exceptionally good news:

A Promising Development at Mundelein Seminary

It warms my heart to see this on the list of classes for next quarter. Will I be taking it? Absolutely!

I don’t know if you heard this or not, but there is now yet another church in Rome where you can find celebrations of Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.  

According to Messa In Latino, the TLM will be at the Opus Dei church Sant’Eugenio every third Saturday.   

A couple good things about this.  

First, this is an important parish.

Second, as one of my correspondents wrote:

This is truly good news and a potential game-changer. If they decided to go public with it in their parish, it’s going to have an impact from outside the strictly traditionalist circles, and the usual suspects won’t be able to pretend it’s just another fringe group doing their thing.

From a reader:

Hey Father Zed.  I’ve got a question about using the vernacular in the TLM…  Last night my fiancee and I went to a TLM and the priest, who had a wonderful voice, sang the mass very well…. Except when it came to the Epistle and Gospel, he sang them in English.....  What’s the deal with that? Is that allowed?  Does it invalidate/illicit-ate the Mass? Or is it all cool?  I know that S.M. says that the readings can be read in the vernacular, but I always took that to be an affirmation of reading them before the Homily.

Yes, that is allowed under Summorum Pontificum.  No it does not invalidate the Mass.

Whether it is a good idea… or cool… or not is another matter.

I think most people will agree that the Council Fathers at Vatican II intended that the use of the vernacular was intended for the liturgy of the word part of the older, traditional form of Holy Mass.   What we actually got went way beyond the intention of the document on liturgy.  From that point of view, it could be taken as a good idea. 

Also, that would eliminate the need to repeat the readings.

However, I am not sure how many congregations of TLM goers would take to this.  From that point of view, such a practice could simply wind up producing more heat that light.

From that point of view, I think it is probably not the best practice… yet.  Perhaps someday it will be, depending on the community.

TLM purists will absolutely HATE that suggestion, I know.  So, spare us, please.

I had the great pleasure of visiting the WWI Memorial and museum today.

Here is a video from gloria.tv about a Mass in Germany for Fasching (the lead up to Lent called "Carnival" – historically a time of excess in various spheres).

I know that Fasching has deep cultural roots… but… in church?

Infra dignitatem.



Folks… charitably resist as you can stupid things scheduled to be done in your parishes churches.

Biretta tip to Prodigal Daughter.    o{]:¬)

From a reader:

A German friend informed me that he just returned from Rome, and on Sat morning there were at least 8 TLM’s at the side altars in San Pietro.

I don’t doubt it.

And I bet the priests were young.

We are going to see a revolution pretty soon, I think, a Continuity Revolution.

When young priests learn the older form of Mass, they gain a new perspective on who they are as priests and what are about at the altar. 

Their ars celebrandi will change even, especially, in the Novus Ordo.

This change in the priests will effect changes in congregations as they in turn gain new perspectives on what Holy Mass is about and who they are as participants.

On kreutz.net you will find a story, in German, about a video from the former superior of the SSPX Fr. Schmidberger thanking the Holy Father for the lifting of the excommunications of the four SSPX bishop.  Fr. Schmidberger is now the SSPX District Superior in Germany/

He expressed regret for the controversy surrounding SSPX bp. Williamson.

He expressed a positive opinion about the beginning of the theological discussions between the SSPX and the Holy See.

He said that the SSPX, with its structures in place around the world, could be very helpful in forming Christians according to the mind of the Church, if only some bishops would support them.

Das Fazit des Distriktoberen: „Falls ein Teil der Bischöfe sich dazu versteht, unser Werk zu unterstützen, und falls die Gläubigen noch vermehrt und tatkräftiger als bisher uns helfen, so kann die Kirche an Haupt und Gliedern erneuert werden und eine Christenheit aufgebaut werden, wie sie die Kirche immer gewünscht hat.“ 

If I were a bishop of a place where the SSPX was active, I would do my best to reach out to them.

I will never be a bishop, thanks be to God, but I hope some bishops reading this might open their hearts and consider what our Holy Father is trying to accomplish, the dangers of our age, and the desire of the Lord that we be one.

I am sure that the great majority of the men in the SSPX are very good and love the Church.  They would, without question, much rather be in union with Rome and the local bishop. 

So much potential… such difficult times.

The wonderful and persistent Anna Arco of The Catholic Herald has on her blog an interesting piece about SSPX Bishop Williamson.

Dinoscopus sleeps, eats and blogs: Williamson Redux

After months of sensible silence in the genteel exile of Wimbledon, Bishop Richard Williamson, the Lefebvrist bishop whose Holocaust denial caused a media ruckuss and an endless headache for Pope Benedict last year has given an interview to a minor French politician of the extreme right, Pierre Danet. The French Catholic newspaper La Croix first posted the interview today.

It was published on Daily Motion on Tuesday, only days after Pope Benedict XVI visited the Great Synagogue in Rome. There is already comment on it here The interviewer, Pierre Danet was a candidate for the European elections on the anti-zionist ticket of the right-wing French comic and political activist Dieudonne M’bala M’bala.

Bishop Williamson said that he believed that the dialogue between Rome and the Society of St Pius X, working towards reconciliation, was a dialogue of deaf people. He also said that he was sleeping, eating and blogging in his “unexpected sabbatical year”. His blog Dinoscopus (a cross of Dinosaur and Episcopus) was public until last year’s bruhaha over Bishop Williamson’s Holocaust denial broke. In the interview he gives his oppinion on the State of Israel, Muslim Christian relations, Kant (a criminal), and some basic theology. He also discloses to the interviewer that he loves Beethoven.