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

I posted earlier the news that St. Benedict Monastery in Norcia, Italy – the birthplace of St. Benedict – will now be offering Holy Mass in both uses of the Roman Rite.

In the newsletter of the monastery there is an interview with dom Cassian Folsom, OSB, the Prior of the Monastery.  dom Cassian is a fine liturgist in his own right.

Let’s have a look at the interview with my emphases and comments.

Does this decision respect the Second Vatican Council Council?

It would be useful to read carefully the Council document on the Liturgy, [That is the sticking point.  How many people really read the documents?] SC 22 says that: “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.” Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio simply reiterates that principle, and legislates for the use of the old rite alongside the new. Pope Benedict also emphasizes that the way to interpret the Council documents is by the hermeneutic of continuity. That principle is also expressed in the document on the liturgy where it says: “…care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC 23). [And the newer form did not in fact grow organically from the older form.  It was artificially pasted together by experts and them suddenly imposed.] What we’re really talking about here is legitimate pluralism, which the Council advocates as well: “Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not involve the faith or the good of the whole community” (SC 37). So the celebration of the Mass by all means respects the Second Vatican Council. We are embracing both usages, and reaching out to other groups in search of unity. That’s a very conciliar approach.

But doesn’t this mean “turning back the clock”?  [An old chestnut, that.]

On the contrary, I see a monastery “utriusque usus” as very forward looking, especially in terms of authentic ecumenism. By that I mean two things. First, the ethos of the extraordinary form is very similar to the ethos of the many oriental rites, [Something many people who have never known the older forms don’t realize.] and therefore celebrating the Eucharist according to both the and the allows us to serve as a bridge between East and West. Second, [This is a very good point…] I think we need a good dose of “internal ecumenism” in the Church, so as to be able to dialogue with Catholics attached to the older liturgical forms without ideological prejudice.  [Amen.]

How can you, as a liturgist, justify such a decision?

It is precisely as a liturgist that I have had the opportunity to study and experience the rich variety of liturgical traditions that exist within the Church. It is “politically correct” for Latin rite Catholics to be enthusiastic about the Byzantine rite. Why isn’t it “politically correct” to be enthusiastic about the extraordinary form as well?  [Tell it brother!] The history of the liturgy shows clearly a multiplicity of usages within the one Roman rite. It is thanks to many years of studying the liturgy that I came to see the importance of this unity in diversity. In fact, I argued this point in the presence of the then-Cardinal Ratzinger at a liturgical conference held at Fontgombault in France in 1997. As a liturgist, I would also like to say that there is no perfect rite; there are positive and negative aspects in every liturgical tradition. The only perfect liturgy is the heavenly one. In addition, both the extraordinary and the ordinary form can be celebrated well or celebrated poorly. For a comparison to be fair, we have to place the best of both side by side.

How can the two usages influence each other?  [Now we get down to something I have been pushing for a long while now…]

The ordinary form stresses such elements as the participation of the faithful, the use of the vernacular, the ongoing development of the liturgy by the addition of new saints to the calendar, etc.: these are all very important. At the risk of oversimplifying, I would say that the ordinary form stresses rational understanding, speaking in prose, as it were. [With the risk that liturgy can devolve into being didactic.] The extraordinary form provides rich food for the intellect also, but relies heavily on gesture, symbolism, intuition, silence, ritual action without words, speaking in poetry, you might say. [Might we say… an encounter with mystery?] Man knows both rationally and intuitively. He needs both prose and poetry. If the two usages, like two different cultures, can patiently live with each other over time, they can become friends.

What pastoral benefits will come from this new apostolate?

The monastery of San Benedetto in Norcia is in a unique position. The pastoral life of the town is served very well by the diocesan clergy. The Basilica, on the other hand, is not a parish, but a shrine, whose pastoral attention is focused on pilgrims who came from all over the world. We are an international community serving an international public. The pilgrims come for a specifically Benedictine liturgy, which is characterized by what I would call a monastic or contemplative style. This is our unique contribution. The extraordinary form is very conducive to this contemplative, even mystical style, which is why the young people are so drawn to it. [Exactly.]  We celebrate the Mass in the ordinary form in the same style, which is why people come from far and wide to participate in our Sunday Mass.

Wouldn’t it be better to be just like everyone else?

To use an expression taken from the world of commerce, growth and development depend on finding a distinctive “niche”. This special apostolate of celebrating the Eucharist, makes the Norcia monastery distinctive, unique. I’m sure it will contribute to the growth of the community, in a time when young people aren’t interested in a vocation that means living “just like everyone else”.

 

Amen.

Kudos to dom Cassian!

From Norcia, Italy:

July 1, 2009

July 7th, 2009 will mark the 2nd anniversary of the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI Summorum Pontificum. For this occasion, the monks of Norcia are pleased to announce a new liturgical apostolate, given to us by the Holy See. The Monastery of San Benedetto in Norcia has been asked to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in utroque usu –according to both the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Roman rite. Please see the latest newsletter (HERE) for details on this special mission and an interview with our Prior, Fr Cassian Folsom, OSB. Feel free to copy from the letter and interview for your websites. By the middle of July we hope to have the technology in place to offer each day a recording on our website of the sung Conventual Mass in the extraordinary form.

As always we rely on your prayers and the kindness of your generosity.

In Christ,
Fr Benedict

Fr Benedict Nivakoff, OSB
Subprior
Monastery of San Benedetto
Norcia, Italy

This is fantastic news.   In the heart of Italy.

Here is the text of the letter by which this initiative begins:

 

April 21, 2009

Very Reverend Father Prior:

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, from the very beginning of his pontificate, has made known his desire to foster the unity of the Church. As in the past so also today, the careful celebration of the Sacred Mysteries is a most efficacious instrument for achieving this goal.

For this reason, fatihful to the intentions of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, this Pontifical Commission, responding to your request, entrusts to the Monastery of San Benedetto in Norcia the special apostolate of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist “in utroque usu”, that is, both in the ordinary as well as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, in collaboration with the Holy See and in communion with the diocesan bishop.

I am confident that your young Benedictine community will always support the pastoral activity of the Supreme Pontiff with faithful prayer,

With my best Easter wishes,

Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, President
Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”

 

On the French language websit Golias there is an interesting article about the upcoming Motu Proprio which will concern the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

I don’t have time to translate it for you today.  Perhaps some of our French readers here can divvy it up and give us an English text.

Here is an interesting line:

Le nouveau Motu proprio à venir, que préparerait déjà le principal rédacteur du Motu proprio de 2007, Mgr Nicola Bux, professeur de théologie à Bari et conseiller estimé de Joseph Ratzinger, justifiera l’importance accordée à la dimension doctrinale de la controverse intégriste. Le rôle de Don Nicola ne saurait être assez souligné.

 

UPDATE 2122 GMT

A reader sent a translation.  It is a little choppy, but hey!  I didn’t have time to do one and this person stepped up to the plate!

 

According to our informations, and on the eve of the lefebvrist ordinations of next June 27th in Germany, the Pope wishes for the coming months to write a second motu proprio. Document to be spent this time not only to the liturgy in Latin, but to a more comprehensive reintegration of Lefebvre in the Church. By asking, of course conditions, but also by engaging the whole Church in this process. That’s serious!
 
In other words, the bishops will no longer be entitled to express openly their reluctance and even less to slow the return of the traditionalists. In fact one knows that the representatives of these currents regularly are complaining to the Pope about the obstacles to their reinstatement placed by the bishops and their entourage. Until then, Rome and the Ecclesia Dei commission bypassed the local bishops without, however, in general, openly disavowing them.

Thus, in 1988, the commission very quickly and very caringly get the situation of the Benedictine abbey of the Barroux Abbey sorted out, without informing or consulting the Archbishop of Avignon at the time, Archbishop Raymond BOUCHEX. More recently, Rome proceeded in the same way with respect to the Institut du Bon Pasteur, without informing the archbishop of Bordeaux, in which he sat. Recently, another signal was given by the Vatican which restored to her parish a traditionalist parish priest in dissent with his bishop in Calvados, so to remind the French bishops. Following such a new Motu proprio, a bishop considered too reluctant to welcome newly joined traditionalists will certainly be severely rebuked
The bishops no longer will be able to express their reservations

Benedict XVI and his advisers intend to enjoy the quiet summer to advance on the path of reconciliation. After the authorization to celebrate according all the old liturgical books (Motu proprio of 2007), after the lifting of the excommunication of the four schismatic bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, a new stage is opening up, more delicate however: That is concerning the divisive theological background in particular with regard to Vatican II and the Magisterium of last popes. You should know that the Pope has chosen the new secretary of the International Theological Commission, the Dominican Father Charles Morerod, precisely according to its sensitivity close to the traditionalist partners. In fact one must be aware that Morerod is the author of a doctoral thesis submitted to the faculty of theology at the University of Freiburg, Switzerland, on the master general of the Dominicans, commentator of Thomas Aquinas, Thomas said Vio Cajetan (1469-1534) in his polemic debate with Luther.


Father Morerod for the theological agreement

But Father Morerod was especially noted for his work Tradition and Unity of Christians. The dogma as a condition of possibility of ecumenism (Word and Silence, Paris, 2005), in which he takes a very drastic stance against a more liberal ecumenism (as theologians Fries, Rahner or Tillard) in emphasizing the essential nature of a true Catholic thought, theologicallly and philosophically indivisible.

Hence, it accentuates the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism in a way that does not displease the most common "tradi" streams. The same Father Morerod strived to trounce the thought of a British Liberal Protestant, John Hick, wose relativist spirit he specifically denies. Oh, this reminds us of someone else … The choice of Morerod Father is therefore not a matter of chance! In a very concrete way, the Ecclesia Dei commission will be subjected to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith (cf. Golias Hebdo n ° 85). There was actually a consideration to join it to the congregation for divine worship, but this was to forget that the problem is not solely or mainly liturgical.
The new Motu Proprio to come, that is said prepared already tby he principal drafter of the Motu proprio of 2007, Monsignor Nicola Bux, professor of theology at Bari and advisor of Joseph Ratzinger, would justify the importance accorded to the doctrine of the traditionalist controversy. The role of Don Nicola will not be stressed enough.

The Italian prelate Nicola Bux for the new Motu Proprio

Consultor to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith and looking for a strategic promotion, Bishop Bux, an Italian priest of 63 years, friendly and discreet, but frighteningly conservative and accurate in its argument, is the determined and tireless craftsman not only of moving closer to the traditionalists but of a restoration of traditional Catholicism as a whole. He drafted the 2007 Motu Proprio on the Mass in Latin. In his latest book, released last October in Italy, "The Reform of Benedict XVI," prefaced by Vittorio Messori, Msgr Bux reckons that rebuilding the essence of the « sacred and divine liturgy, which cannot be made by the hand of man » is necessary. Otherwise, it "would serve no purpose other than to represent himself and upon all it would not save the man or the world, nor would it sanctify it." He is convinced that the liturgy of Saint Pius V better honors the sense of the sacred than that of Paul VI. He criticizes also quite fiercely the reform named of the pope Montini’s name, a true "decomposition" of the liturgy, according to him, expressing and exacerbating what the theologian Louis Bouyer called the "decomposition of Catholicism."

Indeed, Msgr Bux is not confined solely to the liturgical field. He denounces the opening to the world that defiles the Christian mystery and censures the relaxed life of priests in particular with regard to privacy (célibacy. ..). He also attacks the fundamental deviance of the contemporary theology, that he claims to operate an "anthropological turn" (which he also denounces, following Cornelio Fabro, in Karl Rahner). To thise he opposes a new theocentric and Christocentric turning as it may be symbolized by the celebration to the East, his back turned to the faithful. It is easy to imagine the content and tone of the future and near Motu Proprio with such a writer.

Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, who is currently undergoing health problems, is distressed, frustrated and demoralized, no longer has the power nor the liveliness necessary to oppose such an ultra-conservative reversal .

Far from appearing as a defense of the Council, the Motu Proprio will propose a minimalist reading of it, erasing its novelties and questionning its spirit. In sum, a council "according to the tradition" like Archbishop Lefebvre reckoned he could accept it!

Is this still the Council of which Paul VI proclaimed the importance in 1976 when he was facing the integrist dissent? Nothing is less certain.

The following is a piece from the May-June Newsletter of the USCCB’s Committee on Divine Worship.

It concerns the shifting date of the feast of St. Jane Frances de Chantal. 

People who are interesting in the TLM, the Extraordinary Use of the Roman Rite will find this interesting.  It mentions Summorum Pontificum.

My emphases and comments.

Memorial of Saint Jane Frances de Chantal: Which Date is Correct?

Over the past several years, there has been much confusion regarding the celebration of the memorial of Saint Jane Frances de Chantal. The Secretariat of Divine Worship has carefully researched this issue, and now hopes to resolve the confusion. The timeline of her shifting feast day is presented below:

1769-1969 – August 21

Sister Jane Frances de Chantal, co-founder of the religious Order of the Visitation of Holy Mary (commonly known today as the Visitation Sisters), died on December 13, 1641. [Very often the feast of a saint is fixed on the day the saint died, that is, their birth into heaven.  Sometimes it is fixed to the date the saints relics are "translated" from one place to another.  At times, the day used has to do with some other event.] Two years after her canonization by Pope Clement XIII in July 1767, St. Jane Frances’ feast day was fixed on August 21, and remained so until after the Second Vatican Council. (As a result of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI, this date is still observed as her class III feast in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.)

1970-1988 – December 12

In the 1969 reform of the liturgical calendar, her feast day was made an optional memorial and set on December 12. [tinker tinker] December 13, the date St. Jane Frances died, was already occupied with the memorial of St. Lucy.) In November 1971, however, the Bishops of the United States, wishing to honor the role Our Lady of Guadalupe has played in the Americas, decided to insert Our Lady’s memorial – also on December 12 – into the proper calendar for the dioceses of the United States of America. That decision was confirmed by the Congregation for Divine Worship on December 28, 1971 (Prot. n. 2153/71).

Thus in the United States, St. Jane Frances’ optional memorial was impeded for 17 years by the obligatory memorial of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Our Lady’s memorial was later raised to a feast in the United States by its Bishops in November 1987 (a Marian Year) and confirmed by the Congregation for Divine Worship on January 8, 1988 (Prot. n. 1341/87).

1989-2001 – August 18

To allow St. Jane Frances’ feast to be celebrated, the Bishops of the United States voted in November 1988 to petition the Holy See to transfer the optional memorial of St. Jane Frances from December 12 to August 18 [! Not August 21.] in the United States – the date recommended by the Visitation Sisters. The request was granted by the Congregation for Divine Worship on January 20, 1989 (Prot. N. 1609/88).

2002-present – August 12

Finally, [whew!] on December 18, 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments decreed that, because her memorial was continually being impeded by the celebration of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the optional memorial of St. Jane Frances was transferred in the universal calendar to August 12. This decree (Prot. n. 2492/01/L) has superseded the 1988 request of the U.S. Bishops. Therefore, [the bottom line is….] in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the optional memorial of St. Jane Frances de Chantal is August 12; on the Extraordinary Form calendar, her class III feast is celebrated August 21.

When tinkeritis sets in, you never know what is going to happen.

But, it remained the same date for the TLM since 1767.

In the 2004 Martyrologium Romanum St. Jane has two entries!  12 August for the memorial and 13 December for her death.

Some hours back I posted an interesting piece by a baptist minister which has been getting some play in the blogosphere.

On a site called Crunchy Con there is a reaction to the experience this baptist minister had.

A "crunchy con" is conservative whom some say have a greater awareness of the environment, or a preference for small shops rather than strip malls.   I have a sympathy for what I think "crunchy con" might mean.  I like the fact that they are against abortion and attacks on traditional family values.  I like to support small stores rather than huge chains, but I also go to Sam’s Club for a lot of things.  I think we need to take care of the environment, but I think real conservatives love mother earth too.  So… we are supposed to read what I reposted below with the image in our mind of "a crunchy con" reflecting on liturgy.

Try to follow… a post within a post within a post…. a different way of going down, not a rabbit hole, but through the looking glass.

My emphases and comments.

Prayer and worship (Erin)
Tuesday June 9, 2009
Categories: Churchgoing

Rod’s [Dreher’s] post below about the Baptist preacher’s experience of Orthodoxy, and the interesting discussion which follows it, have got me thinking a bit about prayer, worship, and man’s need to encounter God.

Every religion worthy of the name has had some sort of worship ceremonies, rituals which were supposed to get the deity’s or deities’ attention, or honor him/her/them/it in some way. The impulse to offer worship is a recurring feature of most cultures throughout the ages; Christians tend to explain this as man’s natural yearning for the true God, while atheists tend to explain it as some sort of shared psychological impulse which was waiting, not for God, but for science to come along, explain it all, and thus free man from such apparently irrational and primitive behavior.

As a Christian, I, of course, take the first explanation as the true one. As St. Augustine put it, "Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee, O God." We are always searching, always seeking a deeper knowledge, a more intimate encounter, a more perfect love, and a more holy service of our wills to the Divine Will.

In our quest to do those things, we seek to communicate with God; we seek prayer. Prayer can be both private and public, both our personal daily habits and devotions, and our daily or weekly attendance at a liturgical or worship service. It can’t be said often enough that for a Christian, both of these things are necessary—to pray daily while never joining in with the community in prayer can stunt your spiritual growth, while to pray on Sundays surrounded by others and then never really think of God or seek to experience His presence during the week can be an indication that one’s spiritual growth is already stunted, or deficient in some way.

As a Catholic, my liturgical life is centered around the Mass, which itself is centered around the Holy Eucharist. There can be no closer union with God on this earth than receiving Him in the Blessed Sacrament; it is the greatest mystery and the greatest gift we have, for the fostering of our spiritual well-being and the strengthening of our souls. Every act, prayer, song, reading, and posture at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ought to be geared toward this ultimate act of intimate communion with God; anything which distracts or detracts from the proper focus on this sacred mystery ought to be removed.

[And we get to something more engaging…] What I have come to understand, as I’ve read preconciliar documents and writings about the Mass, is that this is exactly what those who proposed reforming the Catholic liturgy had in mind. Writing about these times later, in the book The Spirit of the Liturgy, the then Cardinal Ratzinger said the following:

    "We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, [watch] if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss."  [In The Spirit of the Liturgy, named after R. Guardini’s book, Ratzinger explicitly stated that he would like to see a new Liturgical Movement.  Remember that Pope Benedict gave us Summorum Pontificum so as to help us see the fr[]esco he is talking about here.  Read that through the lens of his December 2005 address to the Roman Curia.]
 
It is easy to blame the Second Vatican Council, or the Novus Ordo itself, [Hang on.  The Novus Ordo is not what the Council Fathers mandated in Sacrosanctum Concilium.] for diminishing the Mass, or making it invariably irreverent or a less worthy form of worship than the Mass which preceded it. [Okay… big jump here after leaving a few things hanging in mid air.  There were very important changes made to the texts of the Ordinary of Holy Mass,  and of the orations which were brought along.] But it’s less easy to admit that there were problems before this time, [Umm… no, it is not.  I think most reasonable people will admit that the Council Fathers saw that some changes had to be made.  Sadly, the process of making the changes they mandated were hijacked.  But, changes were to be made.] or that the reforms were intended for good, [This is a point some will debate.] even if the way they were carried out became an occasion for liturgical experimenters to push an agenda which really did view the Mass from a standpoint of deficient theology and heterodox practice.  [Perhaps the liturgical experimenters, with their own agenda, were the ones to whom the Council Fathers entrusted the reform?]

Keep reading below:

And it has been difficult for those attached to what’s now called the Extraordinary Form to understand why so much was removed, and why its replacement seemed so inferior in the way it was celebrated. [Certainly "in the way it was celebrated".  That is something that many of the more traditional bent need to remember.  There are things to be concerned about some of the changes to the Roman Rite in the Novus Ordo.  However… "it has been difficult for those".... hmmm… is there a touch of, what, knowing patience here?]  If it has been hard to remind some that there is no liturgical rubric pertaining to the new Mass which mandates tackiness or breezy flippancy—in fact, quite the opposite—it is not necessarily the fault of observers if they assumed that such rubrics existed. [People can read.] An "anything goes" style of liturgical celebration has plagued the celebration of the Novus Ordo for far too long, and many of us welcomed the notion that it was time for a "reform of the reform" with open relief.

What really matters to us (and to our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and to many of our Protestant brothers and sisters as well) is that we’re worshiping God in a way that pleases Him first and foremost, and that, for those of us who believe in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, our worship anticipates, points toward, praises, communicates, and celebrates in joyful thanksgiving that tremendous sacramental reality. [An interesting list.]

That said, it is still the case, it seems to me, that a lot of us wish to raise our personal preferences to the level of a liturgical mandate. [Perhaps saying the black and doing the red might help.  But watch this part….] It is, sadly, just as easy [easier, maybe, because of the whole "anything goes" we have seen, and which the writer mentions.  This is part of their identity.] for the present generation to argue a bit about the proper length of a liturgy, the proper posture or postures, the proper sorts of songs, the proper way to receive Holy Communion, and so on as it was in an earlier generation to argue about Latin, statues, candles and art.  [I think he is saying that the externals etc. in themselves are all "morally equivalent".] We are as prone to insist on things being done our way without letting the Church tell us how liturgy ought to be done, as that former generation was, even if the former generation wanted guitar music, and we want it definitively banned.  [Hmm… I don’t think the previous generation wanted guitar music.  I think some people wanted guitar music and forced it on everyone else.    The writer needs to rethink the whole "just as easy" part.  Human nature doesn’t change, but something did happen among the baby-boomers.  A world view changed, values changed.]

I struggle with these things as much as anybody, and I can tell you that in my case any sense that I know better what ought to be done is usually accompanied by a lot of pride and a sense that my fellow Catholics are all, or mostly, would-be heretics with one foot out the door already, so to speak. Such an impulse, even if I stifle it, think twice, and try to examine the situation fairly, just shows that mere attendance at the liturgy, and a habit of daily prayer, aren’t enough without the gift of God’s grace to root out pride and foster humility.  [hmmmm]

 

There at the very end what is he saying?   It think he… she?... is saying that if you want to make distinctions about the Church’s liturgy you are being … what… prideful?

This deserves some discussion.

I think we have seen a great deal of pride and arrogance in liturgical discussions.  That is a reasonable observation.

However, I don’t think it is fair to spread the blanket of pride over the whole discussion.

Also, I think from the tone of the article we get the sense that the writer is not liturgical wacko.  The writer is surely not in favor of what he called the experimentation.

But, I can’t shake the idea that, for the writer, the form of the liturgy doesn’t matter as much as a personal experience of the liturgy.  Sure s/he mentions worship in common.  Sure this is only one small blog entry. 

Is "Erin" saying, "Hey! Our way, as young people of our generation, of praying is just as good, nay rather better than the way people used to pray.  The fact that people always argue about liturgy just shows that all our choices are on equal grounds.  But our grounds should be respected as our grounds, and those grounds are better for us."

It is not my intention to pick on this young person, "Erin".  Use the post as a starting point.   And use it with respect.

UPDATE:

The author of the piece I looked at responded in a comment, below.

 

From a reader:

I thought you’d be interested in the observations of a Baptist pastor who, on sabbatical, visited an Orthodox church.  I think his observations, excerpted below, hold true, as well, about the TLM.  His blog posting is titled "Not for lightweights". 

So what did I think about my experience at Saint Anthony the Great Orthodox Church?
I LOVED IT. Loved it loved it loved it loved it loved it.
In a day when user-friendly is the byword of everything from churches to software, here was worship that asked something of me. No, DEMANDED something of me. [Ah the power of liturgy.  When we get ourselves out of the way and let worship be worship, it overcomes us.]
“You don’t know what Theotokos means? Get a book and read about it. [One thing leads to another.  It was the same thing in my own conversion.  It began with an experience of liturgical worship.  Then the questions and the exploration simply had to begin.] You have a hard time standing for 2 hours? Do some sit ups and get yourself into worship shape. It is the Lord our God we worship here, mortal. What made you think you could worship the Eternal One without pain?"
See, I get that. That makes sense to me. I had a hard time following the words of the chants and liturgy, but even my lack of understanding had something to teach me.  [This, friend, is the encounter with mystery which must be at the core of liturgy.  This is the via negativa.]
“There is so much for you to learn. There is more here than a person could master in a lifetime. THIS IS BIGGER THAN YOU ARE. [Ahhhhh…. yes!] Your understanding is not central here. These are ancient rites of the church. Stand with us, brother, and you will learn in time. Or go and find your way to an easier place if you must. God bless you on that journey. We understand, but this is the way we do church.”

This is what the fullness of the Roman liturgy accomplishes as well.  

This is also why we needed Summorum Pontificum.

I am very pleased that Fr. Finelli, aka "iPadre" celebrated his first TLM today and, being tech savvy ustreamed it!

Here is a screenshot.



I captured the stream and put it also on "Father Z TV", the Z-Cam.

 

In this PODCAzT we will look into the new Year of Priests announced by Pope Benedict XVI and the indulgence priests and lay faithful can gain each in their own ways.

Then, I will start what I hope to carry through the whole Year of Priests, that is, drilling into some texts which might bring the priest into focus.

This time, we will hear Bl. Pius IX (+1878) speak, in his encyclical Amantissimi Redemptoris of 1858, about who the priest is, what Holy Mass is, what the cura animarum is all about especially in light of the obligation priests have to say Mass for their people on feast and Holy Days of Obligation.

In canon law today, Holy Church still requires pastors, that is those who hold the office of pastor, or parish priest, to say Holy Mass for the intention of the people under his care, his subjects, on Sundays and Holy Days.  This is the "pro populo" Mass.   If the priest can’t say that Mass himself, he must see to it that it is celebrated for that intention.

In times past Holy Church has relaxed the discipline of of the faithful to hear Holy Mass in Holy Days, reducing obligations.  However, human nature being what it is, that led to a certain laxity on the part of priests and people alike.  That was bad for their souls.  That eroded the care of souls entrusted to priests.

Therefore, Pope Pius changed the law about these obligations a bit.  The instrument of that change in law was his encyclical Amantissimi Redemptoris of 1858. 

Along the way, the Blessed Pope also gives us some fine liturgical theology and a reflection on the priesthood in regard to the splendor of Holy Mass and its fruits.

I read the text of the encyclical in English, indicating some things to listen for, and then ramble for a while when the reading is finished…. as is my wont.

UPDATE: In my original recording I misread Pius and had him quoting Benedict XVI instead of Benedict XIV.  opps.  I corrected the error.

 

http://www.wdtprs.com/podcazt/09_05_30.mp3

085 09-05-03 Gregory the Great on the Good Shepherd
084 09-04-30 St. Pius V and Quo primum
083 09-04-19 St. Augustine on the challenge of remaining faithful
082 09-03-19 St. Joseph: a hymn dissected & sermon of Bernardine of Siena

Beginning 1 June, please VOTE for WDTPRS in the Catholic New Media Awards.  WDTPRS is nominated in many categories.

There has been a very interesting development in regard to the use the older form of the Ambrosian Rite.

My understanding is that priests and laypeople in those regions where the Ambrosian Rite has historically been used have encountered great resistance from authorities who should be supporting their interest in the older form of the Ambrosian Rite, with the 1954 Missale Ambrosianum, as it was before it was reformed (the parallel of the 1962 Missale Romanum).

A priest friend of mine, Fr. Jeffry Moore, serving in the Diocese of Lugano is stationed at Ascona.  He has gotten involved in the matter and has obtained some results.  As a priest of the Diocese Lugano, he belongs to a bi-ritual clergy.  There are many places in the area where the parishes are distinguished as Ambrosian or Roman.  Fr. Moore’s church has the distinction being of both rites.  Altars are designated specifically for the Ambrosian Rite.   His church in the past actually had a different sacristy for the Ambrosian use. 

People in the region are very sensitive about their Ambrosian identity.

Fr. Moore wrote to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 7 January 2009, which was hand delivered, and followed up with a meeting with Card. Castrillon Hoyos on 9 January together with 2 priests from Milan and 2 lay people.

At that time Fr. Moore was told that Summorum Pontificum applies also to the Ambrosian Rite.

Fr. Moore has now received a letter from the Secretary of the Commission , Msgr. Perl, as a follow up.

Fr. Moore asked me to put this up for all to see.

Here is (the author of the original letter to the PCED) Fr. Moore’s translation of that letter from the Italian original:

Reverend Father,

 Your letter of January 7, 2009 has had our attention but is still waiting for a reply.  You express a desire to “receive the comfort of having the approval of the possibility that also your Ambrosian students who ask for it can enjoy the benefits guaranteed by the Holy Father” in the Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”.

 While it is true that the Motu proprio of the Holy Father does not expressly cite the Ambrosian rite, it doesn’t exclude the other Latin rites; if the will of the Holy Father asserts for the Roman rite, considering that it is superior in dignity, consequently much more for the other Latin rites, including the Ambrosian rite.

 Wishing the blessings of the Lord on your pedagogical work, I greet you fraternally.

This is important not just because it applies to the Ambrosian Rite, but also for all the other Latin Rites which under law were in use before the reforms.  This would include the Dominican Rite, in which many religious have interest.

UPDATE:

A couple past entries on the issue of the Ambrosian Rite… here and here.

A priest reader sent the following about a TLM training seminary for priests in Chicago.

Dear Fr. Z,

Here is a synopsis of my experience for the Extraordinary Form Workshop conducted by the Canon Regulars of St. John Cantius.

We were 10 Priests, 2 Transitional Deacons and 5 seminarians. (Not including the Priests and Brothers from St. John who trained us).

We arrived on Monday for lunch and no time was wasted. Fr. Scott Haynes began the week with a welcome and introduction.  We were immediately divided into groups with an instructor for the Demonstration and Explanation of the Rubrics and Ceremonies.  The first session was made up of three, one hour sessions. We then broke for dinner.  Following dinner, the bookstore was open each day and a time for Confessions.  After a short break, we were divided up once again between those who wanted to work on Latin Pronunciation of the Mass or Tutorial in Gregorian Chant.  I went with pronunciation and worked with a Brother one-on-one.  This session lasted for 45 minutes.  The night concluded with Missa Lecta-Low Mass.

Each day was very similar. Morning started with Mass in the EF. and ended with Mass in the EF. In the morning we had Workshop  (demonstration and practice) for two hours, followed by   Latin Pronunciation or Gregorian Chant.  After lunch, daily Confessions and book store.  Some time for personal review and practice and another workshop with out Mass teacher. In the evening we had talks on various aspects of the Extraordinary Form.

We had the opportunity to experience the EF in various forms of Low Mass and High Mass.

For any Priest, Deacon or Seminarian who wants to learn to offer Holy Mass in the EF or come to a better understanding of our heritage – this is an experience that they should not miss.

The retreat house was also very clean and the food pretty good (seeing that I’m very fussy).

I must say, I was deeply moved and feel the EF is truly, "The most beautiful thing, this side of heaven."

From the site Rinascimento Sacro ... this is great, even if you don’t understand Italian.

A little boy named "Beniamino", an altar boy, received his 1st Holy Communion.

A reader alerted me to an article on kreutz.net which deals with Communion in the hand at celebrations of Holy Mass with the 1962 Missale Romanum, and the employment of altars girls.

I don’t have time to translate it from German right now.

Apparently a canon lawyer named Wolfgang F. Rothe, has put out a study of Summorum Pontificum Liturgische Versöhnung.

The book has a preface by Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".

Perhaps someone who has a little time can drill into this and help the readers.

His Holiness is trying to reinvigorate our Catholic identity.  If we don’t have a strong Catholic identity, we cannot shape the world around us according to our vocations.  We will have nothing of value, as Catholics, to contribute to the public square.

Liturgy is the key.

The provisions of Summorum Pontificum and the example set by Pope Benedict in his own celebration of Holy Mass are exerting a "gravitational pull" on the way Mass is celebrated far and wide.

This is from a reader, with by emphases and comments.

Mass in our new-style round parish church this morning probably didn’t seem much out of the ordinary to the several dozen parishioners present, though the presence of a thurifer [ïncense-bearer] in the entrance procession may have alerted them to the fact that today is a feast day, that of the apostle Matthias.  [People should immediately be able to tell the difference between ferias and feasts.]
 
The incense was used liberally [I hope that means "abundantly" and not that they were using one of those ridiculous pottery bowls or a silly sputnik ball  o{];¬)  ] at all the appropriate times—upon ascending the altar, at the Gospel, at the offertory, and (especially) at the consecration, when the two male servers in their surplices and cassocks knelt before the altar and one incensed the elevated Host and Chalice in seeming synchrony with the bells triply rung by the other.
 
The celebrant wore a beautiful red satin chasuble with gold lining and banding in traditional Gothic cut and style, the deacon a matching dalmatic, and at the offertory the chalice was brought to the altar with matching veil and burse. Directly behind the altar was a veiled Tabernacle recently moved back into the sanctuary, [huzzah!] along with flanking statues of Mary and Joseph, and a large half-century old crucifix recently hung over the altar—the one from the parish’s original church that had been replaced with a "risen Christ" when the new church was built several years ago.
 
The Sanctus and Agnus Dei were sung in Latin. There was no hand-holding at the Our Father, no ruckus at the sign of peace, many bowing with hands folded instead of shaking them. A likely majority of the communicants (including the servers) received on the tongue over a paten held by server. With a deacon available, no EMHC was required.  [excellent] The church was silent before and after Mass, [VERY GOOD!]  and no less than fully reverent moment occurred during the Mass, which was celebrated "according to the book".
 
Nothing here may seem worth remarking, except that none of it would have been seen in this typically liberal suburban parish at a typical daily Mass just two or three years ago. Not likely a direct result of Summorum Pontificum, but surely an example of the Benedictine reform almost silently underway, with Masses like this one probably celebrated this morning at ordinary parish churches across the land.

Brick by brick.

His Hermeneuticalness picked up something on NLM which deserves some attention.

People are starting to pay attention to a preface written by His Eminence Antonio Card. Cañizares for the Spanish translation of Msgr. Nicola Bux excellent book La Riforma di Benedetto XVI: la liturgia tra innovazione e tradizione (Piemme, 2008).

I have the book and it is exceptionally good.

Card. Cañizares made good points in the preface.  Here is His Hermeneuticalness’s take with my emphases and comments.

Even if there were not a single "traditionalist" ...

The important book by Fr Nicola Bux, "The Reform of Benedict XVI" has been translated into Spanish and the new edition has a foreword by Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. The preface itself is noteworthy and Gregor Kollmorgen has kindly provided a translation at NLM.

In one place, His Eminence speaks of the way in which the term "preconciliar" has been used as an insult "as if an abyss should be created between the "before" and the "after" the Council" and then says:

Today, thanks to the Motu Proprio, this situation is changing notably. And it is doing so in large part because intention of the Pope has not only been to satisfy the followers of Monsignor Lefevbre, nor to confine himself to respond to the just wishes of the faithful who feel attached, for various reasons, to the liturgical heritage represented by the Roman rite, but also, and in a special way, to open the liturgical richness of the Church to all the faithful, thus making possible the discovery of the treasures of the liturgical patrimony of the Church to those who still do not know it. How many times is the attitude of those who disdain them not due to anything other than this ignorance! Therefore, considered from this last aspect, the Motu Proprio makes sense beyond the presence or absence of conflicts: [here it comes…] even if there were not a single "traditionalist" whom to satisfy, this "discovery" would have been enough to justify the provisions of the Pope.

It is so heartening to hear such encouragement from the highest authority on the Liturgy besides the Holy Father himself, that the opening of the liturgical richness of the Church to the faithful by the celebration of the classical Roman Rite is something to be valued in itself for the good of souls, even aside from the provision of this form for those who legitimately ask for it.

Many young clergy will also be encouraged with these words from the Prefect:

How many priests have been called "backward" or "anticonciliar" because of the mere fact of celebrating in a solemn or pious manner or simply for fully obeying the rubrics! It is imperative to get out of this dialectic.

I hope that Fr Bux’s excellent book (which I have read in Italian) will soon be translated into English.

Let’s get at that again,... "even if there were not a single "traditionalist" whom to satisfy, this "discovery" would have been enough to justify the provisions of the Pope".

Many enemies of the Holy Father’s vision will claim that the provision of Summorum Pontificum were only given for those few benighted souls – probably with psychological problems – who cannot make the transition to the wonderful new reformed liturgy celebrated in "spirit of Vatican II" fullness. 

Of course they entirely ignore that a greater and greater percentage of people seeking the older forms are people born after the Novus Ordo was implemented. 

This merely confirms the fact that liberals always want you to deny the evidence of your senses and simply accept their premises.

On the other hand, some folks have been arguing that the provisions of Pope Benedict go far beyond the mere issue of reconciling the SSPX. 

I have been arguing that these provisions are an important stage in Pope Benedict’s "Marshall Plan" to renew Catholic identity.  

We must rediscover our treasures so as to have continuity as Catholics with both the past and the future.

To this end, as I have verified with some very smart priests versant on this topic, it is not entirely necessary that, in a parish, people first have to make requests for the older Mass.  Pastors would be acting responsibily and in line with the indications and provisions of the Vicar of Christ were they simply to introduce, cum serena pace, celebrations of Holy Mass also with the 1962 Missale Romanum.

His Eminence Dario Card. Castrillon, President of the Pont. Comm. "Ecclesia Dei" has said as much in comments.  Now the Prefect of the CDW is indicating the same.

On this feast of St. Pope Pius V (+1572) I drill into one of his most famous acts as Roman Pontiff.  Today we look into and listen to his Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, by which he promulgated the editio princeps of the Missale Romanum.

This history changing document came out of turbulent times.  The Council of Trent had just closed and Pius, as Pope, was tasked with the standardization of the Church’s liturgy as a bulwark against attacks on the Catholic Faith on many fronts.   Catholic identity was shaken by the theological revolt in the north, uncertain teachings, lack of unity in the expression of worship and even the menace of invasion by Islamic armies.

Because there is a reciprocal relation between what we believe and how we pray, our worship plays a key role in the shaping and maintaining of our Catholic identity in a difficult world.

However, centuries after the editio princeps of the "Tridentine" Roman Missal, decades after Paul VI issued his own Apostolic Constitution for the promulgation of the so-called Novus Ordo of the Roman Rite, confusing claims remain about the juridical force of Pius V’s Quo primum. 

Some people maintained that Paul VI absolutely abolished the older, traditional "Tridentine" form of Mass with his own Constitution Missale Romanum.

Some people maintain that Pius V’s Quo primum can never be abrogated or abolished or modified even by other Popes and that it still has force of law.

While not trying to get too canonical, we drill into the questions, draw some conclusions, and hear the words of Pius V in their 16th century splendor.

You may surprised at how modern some of the saintly Pope’s actions sound.

http://www.wdtprs.com/podcazt/09_04_30.mp3

From a reader with my emphases and comments:

I’ve been following your blog quite attentively for a few months now and all my reading convinced me that I needed to give the Extraordinary Form of the Mass a try ASAP. This Sunday I attended a High Mass at the EF here in . I loved the sense of reverence, mystery, and sacred space that filled the church. I really appreciated the symbolism of ad orientem posture. Praying in Latin is something I always enjoy since I studied that language from age 11 into my college years.

Still, the Mass was overall a very frustrating experience for me. I thought I was prepared – I had researched the order of the Mass beforehand, I knew my participation would be mostly interior. [very good] Even following along in my little Latin-English booklet, though, I often had no clue what was going on before me. This was mostly due to the fact that I could not hear anything the priest said for most of the Mass. I understand that some prayers are "secret" or whispered, but I honestly heard about 5 sentences after the homily. Is this normal for an EF Mass, or was I just stuck in a back pew with poor acoustics?  [I obviously can’t answer that!  o{]:¬) ] By the end I was so frustrated that I began to understand the attraction of Vatican II reforms and even Protestant tent revival services.

Anyway, here is my question. Afterwards I discussed my impressions with my roommate, who has her master’s in sacred music but is much more liberal than I. I told her about the attack of Catholic guilt I was experiencing – "I’m supposed to love this [the EF] because it’s all sublime and profound, but mostly I hated it!" She told me that she opposes the EF – not a big surprise. Her reasoning is that we believe the Holy Spirit is at work in Church councils. If the Church ultimately rejects the Novus Ordo and goes back to the  older form of the Mass, doesn’t that claim the Holy Spirit was somehow absent at Vatican II?

How would you answer her?

There are several things to address here.

First, I wonder if you didn’t experience Catholic growing-pains?  You might have made an important step in your own liturgical/spiritual growth.  On the one hand you were tuned in to all the right things (reverence, the sacred, mystery)!  On the other you were frustrated because you were being called upon to participate in a way different from your previous and habitual experience.  You are young and have not had this older, traditional experience yet.  You are used to sensory things being fed to you in easy to swallow form.  You are used to the chattier nature of the newer form of Holy Mass.  It is understandable that, not being familiar with the higher form of the older Mass you might have been a little overwhelmed.   The next time you go, it may be a very different experience for you.. or the time after that.

About your roommate’s comments I must say that while we of course believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in the Church’s Councils, the documents of the Councils were not written by automatic writing while the Spirit guided the pen.  They are the work of men aided by grace.  Pope Benedict in the past described the work of a Council or conclave in healthy terms saying that the role of the Holy Spirit was to make sure that we, in our own efforts, didn’t bring about a mortal disaster for the Church. 

Secondly, the Church gets to decide how we pray as a Church.  Changes are necessary at times.  Even abrogation of the Novus Ordo would not mean that the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved in the Council.  It would only mean that the proper authority recognized that our times require something else.

Thirdly, the Council Fathers mandated that some changes be made to reform the Church’s prayerlife.  However, the changes we actually got went far far beyond what the Council Fathers ordered.  The history of this is pretty complicated but those who were put in charge of the reform had their own agenda.  The central characters involved, in their own subsequent books describing what they hoped to do, expose their motives, their goals and their methods. 

In short, the reform the Council mandated is not the reform we got!

Pope Benedict is working to help the Church return to a better understanding of liturgy and liturgical reform.  He is trying to bring our liturgical life into continuity with our millennial tradition of prayer.  He is trying to heal the rupture that took place as a result of the distortion of the Council’s mandates.

You are fortunate to be the age you are, for you missed the truly bitter years.  That doesn’t not mean that their won’t be challenges.  You experienced some growing pains, as we all must.

Finally, I have posted here a couple entries whereunder people gave their own accounts of their first impressions of the older form of Mass.  I don’t have the links handy at the moment.  Perhaps a reader can dig them up.  There were many responses and some of them might be helpful.  I’ll add the link here when I get it.

From a reader:

I happened to note in O’Connell, II, 1940, p. 23: "... the Celebrant, when genuflecting at the foot of the altar (especially when genuflecting on the step), must not turn sideways, but directly face the tabernacle."
 
There seems to become a "rule" in many places for a priest to genuflect turning toward the North-East. Not a very attractive view from pews. And not all that reverent. Could you consider writing about it ? 

This came with the subject line "Important".   I am not sure I agree.

My first comment is that this O’Connell’s opinion.  It is a good one, but it is an opinion.  Sometimes people mistake opinions of sound authorities for the discipline legislated by the Church.  In a similar way, various Pope’s had to issue clarifications over the centuries that St. Augustine’s writings, though venerable in a degree hard to parallel, were not the same as the Magisterium of the Church.

Second, I was not able to find this description of the genuflection in the new edition of Fortescue-O’Connell-Reid, which I reviewed HERE. If I missed it, I hope someone will let me know.

Third, O’Connell presents an ideal.  In reality, some days it is easier to genuflect that others.  Age and injury can make it harder to genuflect in the perfect manner described.  That is certainly my situation.  I have had some bad knee injuries from sports and my knees aren’t happy every day.

It is possible that the young who are in the sanctuary might be learning to genuflect to the "north-east" as you put it, from watching older men doing their best to continue to genuflect at all.   Also, it is a little easier to shift to the "north-east" when genuflecting on steps or where there is a kneeler. 

Yes… I think that sacred ministers and those who serve, as well as the faithful, should pay attention to how they genuflect, lest their signs of due reverence become sloppy through the distraction.  This can become habitual.  We should take care to teach children good habits.

Therefore, it is good to be reminded that an authoritative source offers such an idea.

At the same time, this is really not something I would fume about or pick on.  For example, I can imagine a scene in which a priest has been striving to implement Summorum Pontificum, perhaps taking a lot of flack for it.  I can imagine him trying to calm certain factions in the parish, train servers, get singers, struggle with the Latin every week, etc., only to be confronted in the sacristy be some indignant know-it-all who starts in on the priest’s taking off his biretta as he rises rather than before he rises, or genuflecting at the altar step slightly turned to the liturgical "north-east", or not having buckles on his shoes, or having some unpicked nits on the hem of his cassock…. which by the way is too short.

I can imagine it very well, because I have been the recipient of such comments in years past and I can assure you that they are not always as welcome as you might imagine.

Here is a call to priests who have implemented ad orientem worship in their parishes.

The renowned liturgical scholar Fr. Klaus Gamber – who influenced also the liturgical theology of Joseph Ratzinger – thought that perhaps more than any other change after the Council, the turned around versus populum Mass did the greatest damage.

His Holiness Pope Benedict has for years developed a liturgical theological view of Holy Mass ad orientem versus, turned to the liturgical (not necessarily geographical) East.  WDTPRS has presented his thought many times in entries and PODCAzTs (for example here and here and here).

I found this interesting "pastor’s page" on the site Printed As Preached, by a Fr. Cávana Wallace in San Diego.  Also, I was recently at a parish where ad orientem worship has been gently implemented on occasion in what was a real "AmChurch" style parish.  It seems to be working well!

Brick by brick.

This got me thinking.

From time to time I have reported on WDTPRS about priests who have implemented ad orientem worship in their parishes.  They have generally started some catechesis beforehand.  They have had successes.  They have had problems. 

There are always bound to be people who don’t like something, no matter what it is that is done in a parish.  They complain to the bishop or try to rouse people up against the priest (perhaps forgetting to be grateful that their parish has a priest).

I suggest that ONLY PRIESTS who have implemented ad orientem worship in their parishes, occasional or frequent or exclusive, share here their experiences… the obstacles and positives, the complaints and the kudos, together with the practical details of what they have done and what happened afterward.

I hesitate to leave the combox open on this. No matter how many times I say that I want to hear from priests, the whole world will start posting.  Thus, I ask the Reverend Fathers to e-mail me with their comments, which I was post for them.  You can request anonymity, of course. 

I would like to get some meaty, focused information here, including practical tips and strategies for implementing ad orientem worship.

Once I get some offerings from priests, then I can open the combox for priests to discuss what the priests posted… if you get my drift.