In Rite Magazine (described as "the liturgy magainze for the whole parish) there is an article by Fr. Robert Tuzik, PhD, who is described as "special assistant to Cardinal Francis George, OMI, in the Archdiocese of Chicago." The article concerns the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
My emphases and comments.
Considering the Motu Proprio
Robert Tuzik
As the date nears for the observance of the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, some may wonder what the effect this Apostolic Letter will have on their parish. [He cuts straight to a practical issue.] Will the Mass from the 1962 Missal approved by Blessed John XXIII replace the Mass that we pray—the Mass from Pope Paul VI? Still others ask whether the Mass from the 1962 Missal must be celebrated in their parish.
Since it has been over 40 years since some priests last celebrated the Mass from the form prior to the Second Vatican Council, who will update our priests on the rubrics to be followed for those liturgies? Moreover, what training is needed for the congregation, the servers, and the musicians? [Good concrete questions.]
Some concerns address the attitudes [!] that people have toward those who would like to participate in the celebration of the Mass from the 1962 Missal (a liturgy many refer to as the Tridentine Mass). Other concerns address the fear that the reforms of the Second Vatican Council are being questioned. As more concerns are raised, the challenges ahead weigh on ministers.
Parish staff should rest assured that the Apostolic Letter will not place an undue burden on them. All of the faithful may want to consider the opportunities for reconciliation and greater unity within the Roman Catholic Church that are being provided.
By issuing the Motu Proprio, Pope Benedict XVI is reaching out to three groups. He is attempting to heal a [1] schism [NB: schism] with members of the Saint Pius X Society, to return to the fold [2] Catholics who felt alienated by changes in the Mass after the Second Vatican Council, and embrace the needs of those [3] young people who have found the celebration of the Mass of the 1962 Missal inspirational.
Provisions in the Motu Proprio
As of September 14, the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, the Motu Proprio allows priests who desire to celebrate a private Mass without a congregation to use the 1962 Missal approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Qualified priests [priests should be idonei] also may celebrate a Mass from that Missal with a congregation. Such public celebrations require that the priest celebrant have sufficient knowledge of the Mass, that is, an understanding of the rubrics or directives on how to celebrate the Mass and at least the ability to pronounce the Latin words correctly. [that is reasonable.]
As a result of these qualifications, not every priest will be able to celebrate the Mass from the 1962 Missal. Some Catholics may have the impression that the local parish priest must accede to requests to celebrate the Mass. This is not what our Holy Father intends. Rather, only priests with sufficient training may celebrate the Mass. However, if a qualified priest desires to celebrate the Mass from the 1962 Missal a group can petition their pastor for use of the church. [Well… I am not quite sure about that. Pastors are supposed to receive willingly the petitions addressed to them. They ought to respond in some way, at least. That might involve simply making the church available if they have another priest willing to come in. It might involve more. I don’t think it can be left mere at "Sorry, folks, I don’t think I can do it. You are out of luck."]
A provision in the Motu Proprio states the need for a stable community [here is that problematic translation again] of worshippers of this form of the Mass. In other words, the Motu Proprio is not meant to sanction a one-time experience of the Mass for the sake of curiosity or even education. [Hmmm… not sure about that. This is a legitimate use of the Roman Rite, after all.] Numerous videos of Masses celebrated with the Missal of 1962 can meet this need. Rather, Pope Benedict wants all Catholics to see the 1962 Missal as a legitimate part of our prayer tradition, which needs to be recognized as an extraordinary celebration provided for those who want to celebrate that form as a regular, ongoing experience. [But the provisions also say "occasional" celebrations, that is, celebrations of Masses for particular occasions.]
The ordinary expression of the Church’s rule of prayer is the Mass from the Missal that Pope Paul VI promulgated in 1970. Pope Benedict does not expect the celebration of that Mass to be replaced by the Mass of the 1962 Missal, except in extraordinary circumstances.
In the letter to the bishops that accompanied the Motu Proprio, Pope Benedict XVI states, “In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal form—the ‘forma ordinaria’—of the Eucharistic liturgy. The last version of the ‘Missale Romanum’ prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a ‘Forma extraordinaria’ of the liturgical celebration.”
Pope Benedict has placed limits on the frequency of celebrations of the Mass of the 1962 Missal. He allows only one Mass from that Missal to be celebrated in a parish. Not every parish will have a Mass in the extraordinary form. [Okay… okay… okay… we get it, already. The writer is really hammering the issue of "extraordinary". We get it.]
Reconciliation
Keep in mind the pastoral nature of this Motu Proprio. The Pope is making an effort to end a schism [There is the S word again.] on the part of the St. Pius X Society, return alienated Catholics to a regular practice of their faith, and embrace the young who have found praying the Mass of the 1962 Missal inspiring. This is a pastoral goal that is obviously commendable.
At the same time, it would be wrong to think that Pope Benedict is backing away from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, [Okay… okay…. we got it before.] which calls for full, active, and conscious participation. Participants at the extraordinary form of the Mass need to follow the Mass prayerfully, participating in the responses and chants to the extent that it is possible.
Pope Benedict also reminds that priests must follow the directives of their bishop in the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Mass. In his letter, the Pope states, “I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own diocese.” [However, this document explains the rights of priests in a pretty clear manner.]
It is necessary for priests who wish to celebrate the Mass from the 1962 Missal with a congregation to attend a training session [I don’t see why such a thing is "necessary". Priests are free to find the training they desire. Some priests don’t need any training at all. Why should it be necessary for them to attend training sessions?] reviewing the theology and rubrics found in the Missal. Even priests whose seminary training prepared them to celebrate that Mass will need a refresher course. [Maybe they will and maybe they won’t.]
Pope Benedict envisions a dialogue between bishops and priests [Where in the Motu Proprio is that made explict?] on the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Mass. In many dioceses, deaneries will address the following:
* The number of requests for Masses from the 1962 Missal.
* The number of parishioners interested in celebrating the extraordinary form of the Mass regularly.
* The number of priests able and willing to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass in the deanery.
* At which parish in the deanery the extraordinary form of the Mass will be celebrated.Some deaneries will not receive requests for the Mass from the 1962 Missal. [Whoa! The Motu Proprio does not talk about deaneries. It talks about the parish priest, pastors of parishes.] In other deaneries, the extraordinary form of the Mass will be added to a parish and that Mass will need to be publicized.
Parishes where the extraordinary form of the Mass will be celebrated will need to train servers and musicians. Worship aids should be provided to assist participation. Finally, catechesis must be done in parishes that will introduce the extraordinary form of the Mass into their schedules. It will also be desirable if all parishes, even those not celebrating the extraordinary form of the Mass, do some catechesis on why it has been reintroduced. [This is a good idea!]
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on the Liturgy has published, the Motu Proprio, the letter from the Pope to the bishops, and questions and answers on the Motu Proprio in its June newsletter. The newsletter is available at http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/bclnewsletterjune07.pdf. [Caveat lector!]
While not too bad, this piece over emphasizes some points and fabricates a few others.
There are misleading points in here about training sessions (thought they could be useful, not all priests need them) and about deaneries. It can be helpful for parishes to coordinate resources in a deanery, but that is not the level for decision making: the parish is.
Loading ...
What motu proprio did this priest read? The one I read didn’t say anything about deaneries. It talked about pastors, who are asked to respond favorably to TLM requests.
Fr. Tuzik is presenting a more sophisticated version of the party line.
Pray for priests!!
From past experience asking our deanerie is the end of all. Know matter what even the Holy Father says. We have a few very brave priests here.We now have the TLM every Sunday . Sad to say even with the motu proprio they are given a very hard time.
This article again expresses the common misunderstanding that the Motu Proprio is something to be implemented by bishops and their deans and presbyteral councils. The MP is primarily about the rights of priests and laypeople. The decision to celebrate the extraordinary form rests with the pastors, not bishops and committees. The MP states parameters on the co-relation between the two forms of the Roman rite, it is not an “order” or “decree” that people study and then “implement”. Nobody is forced to do anything here, except to make sure that requests are respected and well-handled. It seems that too many bishops and liturgical commitees don’t like the idea of anything happening within their diocese that is not directly managed and controlled by them.
Pope Benedict also reminds that priests must follow the directives of their bishop in the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Mass.
If that were the case, then His Holiness need not have promulgated Summorum Pontificum at all! Can we not take it for granted that our Holy Father does not make empty symbolic gestures and that SP was actually intended to do something?
The reason that the Ordinary’s authority is not being “lessened” is because the Pope is not establishing any new rights for priests and pastors, he is only clarifying rights that they already have.
“I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”
Attempting to read the whole thing about deaneries in the most charitable light possible, is it possible that the working assumption is that there will be at least one parish in each deanery that celebrates the older form of the Mass? I suggest this reading because I know of at least two dioceses in which bishops very receptive to SP have actually mandated this!
Implied in the discussion on deaneries is the belief that between low pastoral resources and low demand, there will not be sufficient demand to offer the extraordinary form at all parishes. How much truth there is to either assertion will be determined by time. By considering the request at the deanery level, I think an extra opportunity is being created to try and establish the extraordinary rite. As such I think inclusion of this extra layer is evidence of trying to work in the spirit of SP as well as the letter. If such accommodation couldn’t be made at the deanery level, people would still have recourse the bishop and eventually Ecclesia Dei.
Just to add something to clarify my previous post:
If a new Eucharistic Prayer were added to the Mass, it would be up to priests to decide when to use it, and of course when to use all the ones currently existing. There would be no need for bishops and committees to study its implementation. Another option would simply be added, maintaining the freedom of the priest to choose the Eucharistic prayer. This is analogous to the MP. Of course, a different form of Mass requires more parameters in order for the liturgical life of the church to function smoothly, but in essence the situation is similar. The MP provides a framework within which freedom can be exercised.
A provision in the Motu Proprio states the need for a stable community of worshippers of this form of the Mass.
This rendering seems to suggest that the provision requires a stable community of the faithful (i.e,. steady attendance) who have an attachment to and will regularly go to the Mass rather than the requirement that there should be a pre-existing community of the faithful already attached to the Traditional Latin Mass.
The former in my statement above would apply to both groups — be they those who have had an attachment to the TLM as well as those who have formed an attachment to the TLM.
In any case, it seems that in the rendering:
A provision in the Motu Proprio states the need for a stable community of worshippers of this form of the Mass.
appears to be more focussed on a steady attendance of the Mass (i.e., a stable group of worshippers of this form of the Mass) rather than the mandatory requirement as espoused by some that there should be a pre-existing group of the faithful who had always been attached to the TLM.
m kr , You hit the nail on the head. Blessed Mother take care of your sons…
The moment draws neigh when “it” hits the fan. SP has been issued. Bishops then have made responses. The press then leap on. The liturgy “experts” now make their views known.
Soon the struggle really begins. We must be well informed and know our opponents arguments. Expect stonewalling, foot-dragging, distortions, burdens, impediments, utter hatred, and just plain “no”. Then the commission in Rome will hear from us. Then, and only then, I fear, will we get results.
Although the MP speaks only of pastors and parishes, not bishops and deaneries and dioceses, we all know that it will be quite a while before either the interested people or the qualified priests are sufficient for a TLM in most parishes.
In the meantime, would it not be a big step forward in most dioceses to have a Sunday TLM in every deanery. If so, why would it not be a good thing for a bishop to go beyond the MP by requiring this in his diocese?
As Fr Z says, ‘While not to bad…’experience has already shown that some sort of checks and balances should be in place; misplaced enthusiasm, especially of a momentary kind can be quite harmful and not in harmony with the thinking behind the Motu Proprio. In our diocese for example, a young priest suddenly announced that he would be saying the TLM: he knows no Latin, was exempted from studying it at the Seminary because he couldn’t or wouldn’t get his head round it and is given to sudden enthusiasms. Another young priest, who up until a few months ago had no time for the TLM but is quite proficient in Latin, and I might say, is quite musically gifted, suddenly, off his own bat, tried to take over a group who has been attending the TLM for years under the Indult and started training a schola [nothing wrong with that, of course]. However he decided to start celebrating the Missa Cantata but as the schola was still in its rudimentary phase, he allowed them to sing the ‘Missa de Angelis’ and replace the other chants of the Mass with vernacular hymns as they hadn’t learnt the Proper. A hybrid form if ever there was one. When this anomaly was brought to his attention, he blithely dismissed the concerns with ‘I am bound by the rubrics, the people are not…’ I think that adequate training, supervised by diocesan authorities should be in place, even for those who were trained in the past, otherwise, they might continue their bad habits: surely the idea is to move forward, a proper renewal, not an importation of old attitudes and bad habits or worse, taking the attitude that we can make it up as we go along by people who probably mean well but are not equipped for the TLM and don’t realise it or understand the ethos of the TLM: a bit of training never hurt anyone.
Fr K
For what the evidence is worth (and alas, given the Archdiocese of Chicago, perhaps not much) I was at a small conference earlier this year on the liturgy to which Cardinal George was contributing a paper. This was at the point when the Motu Proprio was expected, and when asked what he thought of the issue said he welcomed the document, loved the old rite himself, and added a precise comment about the Latinity of the Roman Canon. He also said he was encouraging seminarians who had what seemed to him sentimental longings for the traditional liturgy to make the time to learn it properly, and that such seminarians would have his full support. It’s a long way from the Cardinal’s office to the average suburban Chicago parish, but he should get credit for his willingness to speak his own mind so frankly.
Fr. K: experience has already shown that some sort of checks and balances should be in place; misplaced enthusiasm, especially of a momentary kind can be quite harmful and not in harmony with the thinking behind the Motu Proprio. In our diocese for example, a young priest…
Yes, Father, this is a very good point to bring up.
There will be some priests who, in their enthusiasm, forget prudence.
So… to our fellow priests out there who are interested in the older form but might not know what to do, I offer the following.
Don’t be a dope! Think!
In all charity, of course.
Henry: would it not be a big step forward in most dioceses to have a Sunday TLM in every deanery. If so, why would it not be a good thing for a bishop to go beyond the MP by requiring this in his diocese?
I am perfectly happy to stipulate that it would be good to have one in every deanery. Also, I stipulate, indeed, support that it would be good to share resources and ideas. However, I think it is out of bounds to suggest that decisions about what one may do in one parish in this regard can be decided at the level of the deanery. That is outside what the Motu Proprio provides.
Father Z: I think it is out of bounds to suggest that decisions about what one may do in one parish in this regard can be decided at the level of the deanery.
Oh, I fully agree. You’re thinking about the possibility that — if left to their own initiatives, the pastors of multiple parishes in a deanery might decide to offer TLM’s in their individual parishes — and then fearing the specter of the bishop stepping in and somehow saying that … One parish per deanery is enough, already!
But I’m thinking of the real-world situation that so many ground-level Catholics face, especially in more sparsely populated dioceses throughout the U.S. That if left to their own initiatives, no pastors (however well-intentioned) in a deanery may find enough interested folks in their individual parishes (and/or enough resources) to offer a parish TLM.
In this common situation, why shouldn’t the bishop step in and say to his pastors … We’ve got somehow to arrange least one Sunday TLM per deanery. By pooling interested folks across parish lines, if necessary, and maybe assigning TLM celebrants from the chancery if they’re not available in the targeted parishes.
Perhaps your thinking on this is shaped by the well-founded worry that some bishops may negatively attempt to impede the implementation of the MP.
Mine, however, is shaped by the concern that bishops need to active positively to encourage its fruitful implementation, likely going beyond the minimal requirement of the MP itself, which is essentially for bishops to simply stand aside and leave it to their pastors (maybe even really hoping it’ll all just go away).
In this common situation, why shouldn’t the bishop step in and say to his pastors … We’ve got somehow to arrange least one Sunday TLM per deanery. By pooling interested folks across parish lines, if necessary, and maybe assigning TLM celebrants from the chancery if they’re not available in the targeted parishes.
Comment by Henry Edwards — 9 October 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Henry,
Ahh, the leadership solution – makes perfect sense to me. Imagine the impact this one move would have on the celebration of all liturgies in a deanery! Of course, in many chanceries, just reading your statement is sure to bring on the ghashing of teeth, a little table-pounding and lots of huffing-and-puffing. Sure signs that the idea does indeed have merit. :)
When the MP speaks of reconciliation, I also thought that one of the Holy Father’s points was to reconcile the post conciliar Church to the pre conciliar Church with regards to liturgy. Actually, I thought this aspect much more important than the reconciliation of the SSPX. The Church is not merely universal in place, but also in time, and almost all of the mainstream study of liturgy in the Church has embraced the idea of a rupture with the pre conciliar liturgy. I wish more people would point this out instead of repeating ad nauseam about the “schism” of the SSPX.
David:
As someone who resides in Chicago and has observed the actions of the good Cardinal George over time, I thank you for your comment as it provides helpful context. We do not know for whom Fr. Tuzik speaks, but the Cardinal’s track record over the last ten years says much as does his recent interview with John Allen.
“We are going to be sure that the seminarians, when they do their practicum on the new Mass, also receive some instruction about what the Tridentine rite looks like, so it’s not foreign to them. It’s the extraordinary expression of the Roman rite, so they should know it. Many of them, I suspect, won’t really be prepared to celebrate it. We demand more Latin of them now. They must have at least two years, and that’s been the case for some
years. But that’s perhaps not enough to actually celebrate it, and the bishop has to be sure that the priest-celebrant can actually celebrate.”
Having observed the Cardinal, it is clear that he wants liturgy to be done well. The Cardinal just finished visiting every parish in the Archdiocese (quite a fete!) and during his parish visits, ‘feedback’ was provided to pastors re: liturgy. The Cardinal also started the Liturgical Institute at St Mary of the Lake Seminary. He has been instrumental in fostering the Tridentine rite and there are at least six sites that have offered the extraordinary form for many years.
Christopher,you are right.The news service of the bishops put it better than they did.The Catholic news agency said just before the MP was issued,that the Holy Father was going to do this in order to reconcile the church with its tradition.The perennial ongoung living and dynamic tradition of the church was ruptured with the liturgical aftermath of the Council.Things were tossed out or forgotten or forbidden.Music changed,architecture changed.The MP is intended to repair that breech and have the Tradition of the church flowing once more,and flow right into the Missal of Paul VI -the reform of the reform.
I am still learning the extraordinary form. I have memorized all those parts that should probably be memorized and I have done a couple of “dry runs” (I don’t know what else to call it). I am pretty close to celebrating my first, private Mass using the extraordinary form.
However, I’m keeping this a secret for now. We had a clergy conference a while back (in September) and the majority of the presbyterate started laughing, rolling in the aisles, when the topic of Summorum Pontificum came up and there were sarcastic remarks made about those who might want to use the extraordinary form. The Bishop has not published any guidelines at all.
In any case, when I am ready–maybe two more weeks–I will begin offering the extraordinary form in private and then I plan to begin offering it on Sundays the First Sunday of Advent. The rest of our community members(Oratorians) are also busily studying–I learned it first so I’m going to help them learn it as well. We’ll be able to, hopefully, offer it daily and on Sundays.
If I get any pressure from the Chancery–I’m heading straight for the Ecclesia Dei Commission–they will take care of it.
The Holy Father’s document is for priests!
Fr. Losoya,
A Mass without a Consecration is indeed called a “dry Mass” (missa sicca)!
God bless.
Fr.Losoya,be not afraid;keep up your work,the future is ours.My diocese had a priests meeting a week ago and the next to the last thing on the agenda was the MP.The diocesan director of liturgy and religious ed led the discussion and began by saying he celebrates the 62 missal in public and in private.Then he mentiones names of several priests who had volunteered to teach any priest.Ironically all the volunteers were ordained in the last 15 years.Then he mentioned that the Bishop had approved the spending of parish monies to finance an excursion to Denton if any priest should want to go there for instruction.The director then mentioned the John Cantius website -Sancta Missa-and also reccommended the video from SSPX.The Bishophas asked that any priest who plans on celebrating the TLM to let the diocesan liturgy office know so that they can put it on the diocesan website.Then a priest mentioned he was doing a wedding in the older rite and the discussion turned to how the TLM can influence the new rite.Not one negative word from anyone.At least 10 parishes are planning some use of the 62 missal and the campus ministry of a state university within my diocese has announced daily masses in the TLM several times a week.Two of the parishes planning TLMs are moderately liberal! Of course this is Arlington,but more and more dioceses will be doing this and that will have a tremendous effect on other bishops and dioceses.
“When this anomaly was brought to his attention, he blithely dismissed the concerns with ‘I am bound by the rubrics, the people are not…’”
Certainly this situation isn’t good, but isn’t the priest correct in his claim? I can find no rubrics in the Extraordinary Form that pertain to me, a layman, at all.
Franklin Jennings
No: the point I was making was this priest missed the point: saying the TLM is not just about rubrics: there is a whole lot of other stuff to take on board. In this case the 1958 Instruction on Sacred Music which regulates the music at Mass: celebration of the Mass of 1962 is still governed by this Instruction. If a priest wishes to celebrate a Missa Cantata then he must do so according to the Instruction regarding music. Full stop. Otherwise, according to the same Instruction he may celebrate a Low Mass with hymns sung by the congregation, even in the vernacular [hence the Post Conciliar 4 hymn sandwich]. The celebration of the TLM, whether it is a Low Mass, a Missa Cantata, a Solemn High Mass with Deacon and Subdeacon or a Pontifical High Mass from the Throne, or Missa Coram Episcopo must be celebrated not only according to the rubrics contained in the text of the Missale Romanum and the Ritus Servandus at the beginning of the Missal itself, but also according to the rules and regulations contained in a whole host of official publications [e.g. Ceremoniale Episcoporum]. This is not being legalistic, it is simply that the celebration of the TLM had the loving attention of Holy Mother Church in every aspect so that each and every celebration would be done properly; nothing was left to the people involved to appropriate and change things off their own bat. That is one of the big things that attracts people to the TLM: the last thing we want is being allowed to celebrate the TLM freely and then go the way the Novus Ordo did in many cases by people who wanted to do their own thing, either out of ignorance or as Cardinal Arinze put it, ‘lack of formation or lack of faith.’
Fr K
I am not a member of your Church but I find the account (Fr Losoya)of priests laughing, and rolling in the aisles at a discussion of the Pope’s restoration of the mass for which the martyrs died quite shocking. Is he not successor of St Peter and also a scholar of international standing regardless of his ecclesiastical position? One should surely expect some respect for tradition, for scholarship, and for the leader of their church? Just what sort of people are you ordaining nowadays?
I’ll bet my biretta and a lot more that they were not ordained in the period that would include ‘nowadays!’
Fr K
Fr. Losoya: I am pretty close to celebrating my first, private Mass using the extraordinary form.
Good for you!
We had a clergy … the majority of the presbyterate started laughing … when the topic of Summorum Pontificum came up and there were sarcastic remarks made about those who might want…
Jesus was mocked too.
The Bishop has not published any guidelines at all.
This could be a blessing, actually.
The rest of our community members (Oratorians) are also busily studying
Give them my best! Know that you are supported by lots of people out here in the blogosphere.
The Holy Father’s document is for priests!
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
The original posting included:
…[W]ho will update our priests on the rubrics to be followed for those liturgies? Moreover, what training is needed for the congregation, the servers, and the musicians?
Sadly the writer never addressed any of these beyond saying that all priests, regardless of experience, would need to attend a “refresher course”. But where? Offered by whom? In what decade?
The other folks are just on their own for self-training it would appear. That’s not really the way to implement the MP. I do hope there is a follow-up letter. Soon!