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

I got a very useful e-mail which I think it important to pass on to you readers everywhere. 

This is from the Latin Mass Society which is in the UK and, I think, Ireland.

They are stressing that bishops of that region are seriously dragging their feet against the implementation of Summorum Pontificum to the end that they will be able to report to the Holy See that there is little or no interest in the older forms of the sacraments.   Thus, they are undermining the long-term implemention of Summorum Pontificum, not just the short term.

Thus, the LMS is saying that it is important to establish a paper trail, some statistics which may in fact be more accurate than what some bishops put together.

For what my opinion is worth, I think this is a good idea.

Remember, this is for the UK.  Organizations elsewhere may need to be created to see to this for their own regions.

Here is the letter with my emphases and comments.

Dear Latin Mass Society Member,

Provision of the Traditional Mass and Sacraments I am sorry to say the LMS is receiving mixed reports as to the willingness of some bishops to enter into the spirit of the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio, ‘Summorum Pontificum’. While it is early days it is becoming clear that some bishops are ignoring the fact that with the Motu Proprio we have entered a whole new world.  [Some bishops are approaching this issue as is Summorum Pontificum didn’t exist and that they still have the authority to permit and forbid all things having to do with the extraordinary use.]

For instance, it is quite clear that the Holy Father foresees that there should be regular parish Masses on Sundays and Holy Days where these are requested or the parish priest prefers, and that personal parishes should be erected where there is a need. [Problem: That definitely is something that bishops do have the authority to do.. or not do, as they see fit.] Several bishops have also instructed their priests to report to them all requests for the Traditional Mass and Sacraments. [I suppose they have that authority, though it seems likely that this is simply a kind of burocratic harassment.  I suggest that parish priests in fact do report every single request, no matter how small, even when Mrs Joe Bagodoughnuts wants her rosary blessed. Everything, requesting an ancknowledgement for receipt of the letter.]

As you know, the bishops propose to send a report to Rome in three years time and they are already collecting statistics as to the level of demand. [PAY ATTENTION] No requests equal no demand! Hence it is very important that all LMS members and supporters make formal requests, preferably in writing, [Not "preferably", rather: absolutely.  In law, quod non est scriptum non est in mundo.] to their parish priests for regular celebrations of the Traditional Mass and Sacraments.

The procedure as laid down in the Motu Proprio is as follows: [No… yes and no, but what follows is still a good procedure.]

You should approach your parish priest with a request that he offer the Mass and Sacraments to include Sundays and Holy Days. There is NO MENTION in the Motu Proprio of ‘stable groups’ or of minimum numbers, but obviously if you gather together a number of names, [That point is not in the Motu Proprio, but it is entirely reasonable.] this is helpful. Your request to the priest should be in writing, [Again, this is not in the Motu Proprio, but it is not only reasonable, it is necessary I think.] polite and should make no comment about the new rite. [YES!   Don’t be snarky in making the request.  That becomes part of the record too!] The Motu Proprio asks the priest to accept your request “willingly”. If the priest cannot or will not grant your request you should write to the bishop, again remaining polite and making no comment on the new rite. The Motu Proprio states: “The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy [your] wishes.” If he cannot, he is to refer the matter to the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome. You should do so as well in writing and politely.

At this stage, if not before, it is important that you copy all correspondence, including priests’ and bishops’ replies, to the LMS office so we can build up a picture nationwide of what is happening.  [Whew!  They are willing to take this on!  In that case send a donation too!]

Note: The Ecclesia Dei Commission is urgently preparing a document to give guidelines on how the Motu Proprio is to be interpreted. They need to know how bishops are currently interpreting the Motu Proprio. Hence, the LMS will shortly send its own dossier to the Ecclesia Dei Commission to help in their preparation of the document. Our dossier will include an analysis of the bishops’ ad clerums [An Ad clerum is an official notice sent by a diocesan chancery to the clergy of the diocese.] and a file of evidence on how individual requests have been treated. When writing to the LMS please state whether you wish your particular case to be copied by us to Rome. It may be that Rome will divulge details of individual cases to the bishop concerned and you should therefore be prepared to be identified. Please note it is important to make your requests and not leave it to others. The bishops will be collating statistics on requests for the Traditional Mass and Sacraments and may well tell Rome that there is little need for extra provision in England and Wales. We must show this is wrong. Don’t forget to copy your requests to priests and bishops to the LMS office. Hearsay is not sufficient!  [That is why it is important to write requests and have zopies of correspondence.]

(You may like to know that the Chairman of the LMS has made a formal request to the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales for an early meeting to discuss the speedy and full implementation of the Motu Proprio.)

If you need further advice or guidance feel free to contact me in the LMS office.

Yours in Domino,

John Medlin
General Manager

P.S. This letter applies to members in England and Wales only. If you reside in Scotland or Northern Ireland you should liaise with your own national organisation as follows:

Scotland: Una Voce Scotland, Tel: 0131 332 3001
Ireland: Latin Mass Society of Ireland, e mail: plaigh@esatclear.ie

I don’t have a suggestion at this point for a contact organization in the USA.   Perhaps in the discussion that follows something will emerge.

Residents of the USA and of Canada, and other places, please feel free to discuss this point, but make your locations plain so that people can follow what is going on.  If necessary, I can make another entry to clarify what emerges.

 

The daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference Avvenire has an article on p. A23 about the appearance of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum in the official instrument of the Holy See for the promulgation of documents, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.  

There are variations in the text of the Motu Proprio.  

First, here is my translation of the piece in Avvenire with my emphases and comments.  Then I will summarize the few, but in some ways, important changes to the Latin text.

Summorum Pontificum Published in the Acta

Mass in Latin [grrrrr]

The text of the Motu Proprio is in the "official gazette" of the Holy See.  How requests for use of the Missal of 1962 in parishes where there is "stably" a group of faithful adhering to the pre-conciliar rite are to be received.

Yesterday Benedict XVI nominated as Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Msgr. Camile Perl, till now Secretary of the same Commission.  At the same time the Pope nominated as Secretary Msgr. Mario Marini, until now Adjunct Secretary.

The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, with which on 7 July 2007 Benedict XVI "derestricted" the use of the pre-conciliar Missale Romanum, was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official gazette of the Holy See.  The text of the document appears in the fascicle of the Acta distributed last week, that bears the date 7 September 2007, on pages 777-781.  Together with is the accompanying letter that the Pope wrote to bishops of the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite.

On 22 September of last year Corriere della sera had a comment on p. 49 entitled "But is the Motu Proprio really on the back burner? (resta a bagno maria)".  In it it was indicated that the document Summorum Pontificum had not yet been published in the Acta, "the instrument which gives force to papal provisions".  The commentator in question, Prof. Alberto Melloni, after having referred to criticisms expressed by some ecclesiastics about the Motu Proprio in question, appears to appreciate the "wise decision still to keep on the back burner a text that is creating more problems than it resolves."

In reality, at the time the Motu Proprio was not published in the Acta for the simple fact that there had not been time enough to work out the technical issues.  To tell the truth, the publication of the Motu Proprio was expected in the preceding fascicle of the Acta, that bore documents and pontifical appointments published between 27 May and 2 August 2007.  Perhaps the brief delay for the publication was due to the fact that, compared to the version published on 7 July 2007, the definitive and binding version of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum showed some small variations. 

Above all, the Motu Proprio was given a subtitle (De uso [sic! It should be usu.] extraordinario antiquae formae Ritus Romani) that was not present before.  In Article 1, then, the term "conditiones" was replaced with the more correct form "condiciones". 

In Article 3 the term "plerumque" (the majority of times) was replaced with "habitualiter" (habitually), without however changing the substance of the disposition.  [Not sure about that.]

The more concrete variation, on the other hand, is in Article 5,1: "In parishes in which there exists stably (stabiliter) a group of faithful adhereing to the preceding liturgical tradition, the pastor is to received willingly their requests for the celebration of Holy Mass according to the rite of the Missale Romanum published in 1962".  In the original version, in place of the term "stabiliter" there was "continenter", which literally means "uninterruptedly" and which could cause one to think erroneously that the group of the faithful had the right to the "pre-conciliar" Mass only if it was stably established already before the publication of the Motu Proprio and not subsequent to it.   [This is a significant change in meaning.]

Finally, another variation is found in Article 7: "If a group of the lay faithful, mentioned in art. 5,1, have not obtained to the request on the part of the pastor, let the Diocesan Bishop be informed about the matter.  The Bishop is strenuously asked that he graciously grant their desire.  If he does not want to provide for such a celebration, let the matter be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".  In this case the verb "non vult" replaces the original "non potest" (cannot).  [Another fairly important change.]

...

To sum up the changes in the Latin text.

There is a subtitle: De uso extraordinario antiquae formae Ritus Romani ("On the extraordinary use of the old form of the Roman Rite");  [No significant meaning attached to that addition.  Remember that in Latin, antiquus can also mean "former in time", not just "old" or "ancient".]

In Article 1, conditiones is replaced by condiciones.  [The meaning of the Article does not change thereby.]

In Article 3, plerumque ("very often, for the most part") is replaced with habitualiter, a word found in juridical Latin, meaning "habitually", with the legal overtone that carries.  [This could have an impact.  But we need a canonist on this.]

In article 5, § 1, continenter ("continuously, uninterruptedly") is replaced with a term found in legal Latin stabiliter ("stably").  This is an important change in meaning.  Effectively, stably says that the group has to be there for a while, and need not have been there in an uniterrupted way even before the Motu Proprio.  So, new groups can form and emerge and then be around in a continuous way.  What we still need to understand, however, is what "stable" means in terms of the group’s composition.  One assumes reasonably that a group can grow or shrink.  Hopefully this will be clarified now that we have the correct word. [This is big.  It concerns the composition and presence of a group of faithful.]

In article 7, non potest ("cannot") is not non vult ("does not want").  There is a big difference between not wanting to do something and not being able to do something.  We are all able to do things we would prefer not to do.  So, if a priest is capable, if a bishop is capable, but does not want to do something for the requests of lay people, the matter goes to Rome.  In other words, if the cleric is capable, and the means are there, there is even less excuse not to receive petitions positively than there was when the words were non potest.  [This is also big.  It concerns the attitude of those who receive petitions, the available means, and ability of the clerics concerned.]

In a way, the change to stabiliter and non vult strengthen the rights of lay people in this regard.  I don’t really understand the ramifications of the juridical sounding habitualiter (a dreadful Latin word).

The highly estimable Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, His Excellency Most Reverend Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige gave an interview to Bruno Volpe of Petrus where you can find the original Italian. 

Rorate has their own translation, but here is mine with my emphases:

Your Excellency, what kind of reception has Benedict XVI´s Motu Proprio which liberalized the Holy Mass according to the Tridentine Rite had?  Some, in the very bosom of the Church, have got their noses bent out of shape…

"There have been positive reactions and, it’s pointless to deny it, criticisms and opposing positions, also on the part of theologians, liturgists, priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals. Frankly, I don’t understand this distancing from, and, let’s just say it, rebellion against the Pope. I invite all, above all shepherds, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. Bishops, in particular, swore loyalty to the Pontiff: they must be consistent and faithful to their commitment."

In your view, what are these demonstrations against the Motu Proprio due to?

"You know there have been, on the part of some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplicably aim at putting limits on the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Behind these actions there are hidden, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other hand, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I call on everyone to obey the Pope. If the Holy father decided he had to issue the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons which I share entirely."

The derestriction of the the Tridentine Rite by Benedict XVI appears to be the right remedy for the many liturgical abuses sadly recounted after the Second Vatican Council with the ‘Novus Ordo’...

"Look, I don’t want to criticize the ‘Novus Ordo’. But I have to laugh when I hear it said, even by friends, that in a some parish, a priest is a ‘saint’ because of his homily or how well he speaks. Holy Mass is sacrifice, gift, mystery, independently of the priest celebrating it. It is important, nay rather, fundamental that the priest step aside: the protagonist of the Mass is Christ. So I really don’t understand these Eucharistic celebrations turned into shows with dances, songs or applause, as frequently happens with the Novus Ordo."

Monsignor Patabendige, your Congregation has repeatedly denounced these liturgical abuses…

"True. However, there are so many documents which have sadly remained dead letters, winding up on dusty shelves or, worse yet, in waste baskets."

Another point: one often hears very long homilies…

"This is an abuse too. I’m against dances and applause during Masses, which aren’t a circus or stadium. Regarding homilies, they must be about, as the Pope has underscored, the catechetical dimension exclusively, avoiding sociologizing and pointless chatter. For example, priests jump onto some political point because they didn’t prepare their homily well, which really ought to be scrupulously worked on. An excessively long homily is synonymous with poor preparation: the right length of time for a sermon should be 10 minutes, 15 at most. You have to remember that the high point of the celebration is the Eucharistic mystery, without of course  intending to downplay the liturgy of the Word, but rather to make clear how to carry out a correct liturgy."

Returning to the Motu Proprio: some criticize the use of Latin during Mass…

"The Tridentine Rite is part of the tradition of the Church. The Pope has duly explained the reasons for his provision, an act of liberty and justice towards traditionalists. As for Latin, I would underscore that it was never been abolished and, what is more, that it secures the universality of the Church. But I repeat: I urge priests, bishops, and cardinals to obedience, setting aside every kind of pride and prejudice."

I have a couple observations.

Archbp. Ranjith identifies resistance to Summorum Pontificum, that is, attempting to impose restrictions on the Pope’s wide provisions, as a manifestation of the sin of pride. 

Ranjith firmly establishes that Christ is the true actor in the Mass.  Thus, since He is the Actor, what He does in the liturgy (the Church’s texts and the our gestures defined by rubrics) is Christ acting and speaking through us.  Our active participation, therefore, be characterized by active participation by active receptivity. 

Since Christ is the true Actor, the priest needs to get out of the way and not impose too much his own personality on any liturgical action.  The older form of Mass, in its precision of rubrics first and foremost, but also its gestalt tends to control the priest.  The newer form of Mass frees him up in a way that is a little risky.  Also, we could say that the ad orientem manner of saying Mass also helps to get the priest out of the way so that everyone can focus more fully on the Lord together. 

About that phrase of "liberty and justice" towards "traditionalists".  In an amazing coincidence I was reading this morning a new little book by a liturgist at the liturgical institute Sant’Anselmo in Rome, Andrea Grillo (born 1961) entitled Oltre Pio V... Beyond Pius V.  Though I am not too far into this book, and probably won’t go much further, Grillo takes exception to the argument in favor of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum based on "freedom" of rites.   I will look over that section again and maybe post some comments on it elsewhere.  But it strikes me that Archbp. Ranjith knows precisely who, in Rome and around the world, is fighting the Motu Proprio and with what arguments.

Therefore, WDTPRS will continue to keep and eye on things and let people know what is going on.  If I can’t always provide lots of analysis or review everyone you readers inform me about, I can at least put certain positive and negative positions in the spotlight.  You can do your own digging and decide what is going on.

 

WDTPRS’s favorite critic of the Holy See’s liturgical translation norms, His Excellency Most Reverend Donald W. Trautman, the outgoing Chair of the USCCB’s liturgy office has determined it best to issue his own norms for the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum in the Diocese entrusted to him by the Supreme Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ whose own provisions were published for the Universal Church in Summorum Pontificum.

The document released by Bp. Trautman, with a splendid instrument of PROMULGATION (see right) is 16 pages in .pdf form, some of which are actually the Holy Father’s cover letter and an unofficial and highly questionable translation of the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio,

Ironically, this also gives us an opportunity to see in action what principles of translation His Excellency favors.

Let’s have a long look… for it can be nothing other than that… at this Erie "mega biblion".

First, the document maybe be perused here.  I call to your attention that it is called (I am not making this up): tridentinenorms.pdf

I suggest you get yourself a calming pot of tea, or a stiff drink, or something which will sooth you.

My emphases and comments.

 

DECREE OF PROMULGATION
of the Instruction Norms for the Implementation of the motu proprio Apostolic Letter Concerning the Extraordinary Form of the Celebration of the Mass and Sacraments Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Erie

On July 7, 2007 His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI issued motu proprio the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum in which he gave, as the Supreme Legislator of the Church, new norms for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum. These norms, which have become universal law for the Latin Church and which took effect on September 14, 2007, are to be adhered to by all members of the faithful in the Diocese of Erie, clergy and laity alike. [This begs the question.  What else is needed?]

In order to provide for the faithful observance of the law and to determine with greater precision the ways in which the law is to be observed in the Diocese of Erie, I promulgate with this decree the attached instruction Norms for the Implementation of the motu proprio Apostolic Letter Concerning the Extraordinary Form of the Celebration of the Mass and Sacraments Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Erie.

This instruction is to be adhered to according to the norm of Canon 34. Its provisions take effect and acquire the force of particular law for the Diocese of Erie on the Solemnity of All Saints, November 1, 2007.

Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, S.T.D., S.S.L.
Bishop of Erie

The Rev. Edward M. Lohse, J.C.L.
Chancellor

Given at the Chancery
of the Diocese of Erie
on this 5th day of October, 2007

Signatures and seal are on file in the Chancery Office.


Norms for the Implementation of the motu proprio Apostolic Letter Concerning the Extraordinary Form of the Celebration of the Mass and Sacraments Summorum Pontifcum in the Diocese of Erie

Introduction

On July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued a motu proprio apostolic letter concerning the extraordinary form of the Celebration of the Mass and Sacraments. The title of this letter, Summorum Pontificum, is taken from the first two words of the original Latin text. Summorum Pontificum establishes norms for the celebration of the Mass and sacraments according to the liturgical books in force in 1962.

At the same time, Pope Benedict XVI issued a separate letter to all the bishops on the occasion of the publication of the letter Summorum Pontificum in which the Holy Father explains the rationale for providing for and regulating liturgical celebrations according to
the 1962 Missal.

In speaking about these new norms concerning the use of the 1962 Missal, Pope Benedict XVI states that "the use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very
often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will remain the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."
In the same letter to the bishops, Pope Benedict XVI explains that the norms established in Summorum Pontificum do not lessen the authority and responsibility of bishops [And who can doubt that this is the real point, here.] for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of the faithful in their diocese. In this regard, Pope Benedict XVI states, "Each bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own diocese." Finally, Pope Benedict XVI exhorts the bishops to continue their role as moderator of the liturgy by remaining "watchful that all is done in peace and serenity."

With due regard for the authority and responsibility of the diocesan bishop for the liturgy, these diocesan norms are issued so that the norms established in Summorum Pontificum are implemented in peace and serenity with due regard for the actual situation of the
faithful in the Diocese of Erie.  By decree of the Most Reverend Donald W. Trautman, Bishop of Erie, these diocesan norms take effect on November 1, 2007 (the norms established in Summorum Pontificum having taken effect on September 14, 2007).

    1. Ordinary Form

    1.1 The "ordinary form," i.e., the usual/normal manner for the celebration of the Mass and the sacraments remains the Roman Missal of Paul VI of 1970 as revised in the third typical edition promulgated by John Paul II in 2001 (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 1).  [So… the "usual/normal manner" is according to the Latin edition of the Missal… we get it…] The ordinary form is usually celebrated in the vernacular (common language of the people).  [Good heavens… ]

    2

    1.2 In the Diocese of Erie the common language is English, according to the translations of the liturgical books prepared under the direction of the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy and approved by the Holy See. [ummm…. can a bishop determine what the common language of a Diocese is?  Won’t that depend on the neighborhood these days?]

    [Now watch this next part carefully.  He will try to establish that if any other language than English is used for Mass there has to be some demonstrable or verifiable competence in that language, both passive and active.]  1.3 In some instances, other modern languages may be used (e.g., Spanish, Polish, Italian, etc. [Pretty euro-centric, I’d say…]), depending on the needs of the people. This may be done only in those celebrations where a language other than English is truly understood by the people and in which the people are capable of participating by making the responses in that language. Liturgical books (missal and lectionary) must be used which contain translations in the vernacular issued by the competent Church authority. Celebrants are not permitted to prepare their own translation of the liturgical books (canon 846 .1). If the people are not conversant [There it is!] in another language, the liturgical celebration should be in English, including the prayers, Eucharistic prayer, readings, and homily. Traditional hymns in another language that are known to the people may be used.

    1.4 In accord with the norms of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, the "ordinary form" may be celebrated in the Latin language. [Of course… in the Latin Church how could it be otherwise.] This is not to be confused with the "extraordinary form" (see norm 2.1). The prayers of the ordinary form in Latin are according to the 3rd typical edition (2001) of the Roman Missal. The readings and homily are in English (or in another approved vernacular language if warranted according to pastoral need). [If memory serves, the readings are part of Mass and Mass may be celebrated in Latin, in whole or in its various parts.] Liturgical celebrations according to the "ordinary form" should not be celebrated in Latin unless the people are adequately prepared and therefore able to participate in the responses (canon 928). [Let us not forget that the Council mandated that pastors of souls (all this time, btw.. for decades now) have had the obligation to make sure their flocks could both sing and speak those parts of Mass pertaining to them in both their mother tongue and Latin.  I wonder how well that project is going?] The possibility of celebrating the ordinary form in the Latin language is commended to all priests for consideration as an alternative [!] to using the extraordinary form in satisfying the spiritual needs of the faithful who desire a "Latin" Mass.  ["ANYTHING but that OLD MASS!   Even Novus Ordo in… in… Latin….".  However, while Latin is in many respects very important, most people will not think to reduce the older form of Mass only to the language.  His Excellency’s point is actually a little condescending.]

    2. Extraordinary Form

    2.1 The celebration of the Mass and the sacraments according to the typical edition of the Roman Missal of Blessed John XXIII issued in 1962, i.e., the so-called Tridentine Rite, is the "extraordinary form" (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 1). All of the requirements for the valid, licit, and reverent celebration of the Mass and the sacraments according to the extraordinary form are to be observed, even in celebrations where the faithful are not present (canon 834 §2).  [Why was this not said for the "ordinary form" above?  Is there some sort of sneering double standard being applied here?  Is there some pre-supposition at work?  Are all the "ordinary" celebrations without any question "valid, licit and reverent" so that no comment need be made?]

    2.2 The Latin language is used in liturgical celebrations using the extraordinary form. [For pity’s sake…] In Masses where the people are present, the readings and homily should be in the vernacular, [First, the readings are in Latin, according to a "licit" celebration of the older form.  Then they may be in the vernacular.  Second, why say the homily must be in the vernacular if the presupposition is that so few priests know Latin?  But, let’s be fair and let that stand as good advice anyway.] using editions recognized by competent Church authority (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 1).

    3. Required Qualifications [Here we go!] for Priests to Celebrate Using the Extraordinary Form

    3.1 The following requirements must be met for priests to celebrate the Mass and the sacraments using the extraordinary form, even in private.

    3.2 The Diocesan Bishop reserves to himself or to his personal delegate the authority to determine whether a priest is qualified to celebrate the Mass or sacraments according to the extraordinary form (canon 838 §§1, 3).  [How will that be determined?  A test?  This is what he said he would do.  I suspect this norm can be easily challenged and that Rome will give a very favorable hearing to any priest who is disciplined by this bishop for not submitting to a test.  Think about this.  No such requirement will be imposed on any other priest who desires only to use the 2002 edition of the Missal.  There is a blatant and punitive double-standard at work here.]

    3.3 Only priests who are not impeded canonically and are in good standing may celebrate Mass in the Diocese of Erie according to either the ordinary or extraordinary form (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §4; canons 900 §§1-2; 916). An extern priest is to provide an
authentic celebret to the pastor, administrator, or chaplain of the place (canon 903).

    3.4 Priests may celebrate Mass and the sacraments according to the extraordinary form only if they give evidence of their ability with the Latin language as well as adequate knowledge of the rubrics for the proper celebration according to the 1962 Missal
(Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §4).  [It is unclear as to what form that "evidence" must take.]

    3.5 Proficiency in the Latin language should be sufficient to demonstrate that the priest is not simply reciting the words of the sacred liturgy, but has an understanding of the meaning of what he is saying. [That is a nice thing, of course, but it is not what idoneus means in the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio.  As Card. Egan pointed out so clearly, idoneus simply refers to a priests minimum qualification, which in this case is the ability to pronounce the Latin properly.] The requisite knowledge concerning the rubrics of the 1962 Missal would be that which would ensure that the Mass and the sacraments are celebrated in a correct and dignified manner. [That’s fair.] These requirements with regard to knowledge of Latin and the liturgical rubrics apply to all celebrations of the extraordinary form, whether in private or with the faithful present.  [But apparently no one using the newer form of Mass need give any evidence that they have the slightest idea of what they are doing or saying.]

    3.6 Any priest who has celebrated the Mass or the sacraments with permission of the Diocesan Bishop according to the extraordinary form since the July 2, 1988 motu proprio letter Ecclesia Dei of John Paul II is presumed to be qualified to continue celebrating using to the extraordinary form, unless the contrary is evident in the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop.  [So that he has something to hand over the priest’s head.]

    3.7 All other priests incardinated or serving on a stable [here is that world "stable" used in a proper context.  "Stable" has a real meaning in law.  That is why it is WRONG to render continenter (the adverb) as if it were an adjective "stable", as in "stable group".  It implies something about a group that doesn’t really apply.] basis in the Diocese of Erie are to contact the Diocesan Bishop’s delegate in order to verify the prerequisite knowledge and ability to celebrate using the extraordinary form. The celebret for a visiting extern priest must indicate that his knowledge and ability to celebrate using the extraordinary form is verified by his Diocesan Bishop or religious superior.  [For heaven’s sake!   Doesn’t this look like this bishops is essentially imposing his own norms on all the other bishops and religious superiors?  Several words come to mind here to describe this approach… Suffice to say that this seems little more than an exercise in intimidation.]

    4. Required Qualifications for Others Assisting a Priest who Celebrates Using the Extraordinary Form [Not content with these overly restrictive norms for clergy, he will now impose them on lay people… just so that they feel include in his loving embrace of the Holy Father’s provisions.]

    4.1 Concelebration is not envisioned in the 1962 Roman Missal. No priest may concelebrate [DUH!] or assist in any way that may be perceived as concelebrating at any Masses using the extraordinary form.

    4.2 Any cleric (priest or deacon) who assists the celebrant in a solemn Mass using the extraordinary form in the liturgical role of deacon or sub-deacon, must give evidence of all of the same qualifications enumerated above for priests who will celebrate using the extraordinary form.
   
[This just never ends, does it…an hour of my life I’ll never get back.]

    4.3 Any layperson assisting as an altar server at Masses and celebrations of the sacraments using the extraordinary form must be properly trained to recite the proper responses and to carry out their function according to the rubrics of the 1962 Missal (canon 230 §2).

    4.4 The 1962 Missal refers to acolytes as the ones who carry out the function of altar servers for the extraordinary form. For liturgical celebrations using the extraordinary form, the function of altar server is reserved to males, whether youth or adults, in accord with the prescripts of the 1962 Missal. (In the Diocese of Erie, pastors may permit properly trained males or females, whether youth or adults, to function as altar servers for celebrations using the ordinary form.)  [This is curious.  His Excellency without question has the authority in his diocese to permit females to serve at the altar or not.  However, regardless of what the "prescripts of the 1962 Missal" say about who serves, i.e., acolytes, the 1983 Code has been interpreted to say that females also can substitute for duly installed acolytes.  So.. again, do we find a double-standard?   Mind you, I agree that only males should serve (in any Mass).  But this approach seems a bit odd.]

    5. Occasions for the Use of the Extraordinary Form

    5.1 The use of the extraordinary form is not at all permitted for a private Mass during the Paschal Triduum, whether or not the people are present (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 2). The Paschal Triduum begins with the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday and concludes with Evening Prayer on Easter Sunday. A private Mass is one that is not scheduled or announced by any means, but celebrated at the initiative of the priest.  [That is his definition of a "private Mass".  Not scheduled or "announced".  A little vague.]

    5.2 With due regard for the prohibition during the Paschal Triduum, and with due regard for the norm of canon 905 §1, a priest who has not already celebrated a scheduled or announced Mass on that day, may celebrate a private Mass using the extraordinary form (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 1).

    5.3 With due regard for the need to “avoid discord and favor unity" (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1), a private Mass is never to be celebrated at the same time when public Masses are celebrated in the same church, oratory, or chapel (canon 902). Also, a private Mass should never begin less than 15 minutes following the conclusion of a public Mass or other liturgical celebration in the same church, oratory, or chapel.  [Lest… gasp… anyone might still be around.  I wonder if this applies to the newer form of Mass too.]

5.4 The faithful who ask of their own free will to be admitted may attend a private Mass celebrated according to the extraordinary form (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 4). With due regard for the norm of canon 906, a priest should not enlist the faithful to attend a private Mass celebrated according to the extraordinary form, otherwise the Mass is not in fact private, but has been announced and thereby is governed by Norm 5.5. [good grief … any priest disciplined for such a thing would get a very good hearing in Rome, I think.   This is absurd.  The priest really ought to have a server or two.  How else would that happen unless he arranged it?  And what harm does it do that people attend Holy Mass?]

    5.5 A priest may not, on his own initiative, schedule a public Mass according to the extraordinary form. Public Masses celebrated according to the extraordinary form are scheduled only “in parishes where there is a stable group [There is that bad and unofficial translation.  Is the one who so objects to literal translations of Latin for liturgical use applying a "dynamic equivalent" to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum?] of the faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition" and who request that Mass be celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This request is answered by the pastor, and not by any other priest. These requirements are explicit in the norms established by Pope Benedict XVI (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1). 
   

    5.6 The Diocesan Bishop has determined that a stable group is one in which there are at least 25 persons [I bleieve this to be entirely contrary to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.  I think it will be clarified that no bishop can impose such a number, which is not determined in the Motu Proprio.  I suspect that if a group of people objected and put this to the test, they would receive a good hearing in Rome.  At the same time it is reasonable that a parish wide initiative cannot be easily undertaken for a very small group… or can it?  There are all sorts of parish initiative made for smaller groups than 25. I think we all know what this is really about.] who, in the same location and in an ongoing manner, [this is what happens when you MISTRANSLATE LATIN.  This is NOT what coetus continenter exsistit means.] adhere to the liturgical tradition according to the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII. Individuals or groups seeking the celebration of the Mass according to the extraordinary form on an occasional basis lack the required stability for requesting its public celebration (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1).

    5.7 In granting approval to a request for Mass to be celebrated according to the extraordinary form for a stable group  [There’s that bad phrase again.  They like this bad translation.  It allows them to circumvent the principle of law that when people have rights under the law, those laws that give the rights are to be interpreted as favorably as possible.] of the faithful the pastor must "ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the