I had this strong sense of déjà vu when I opened the e-mail containing the following. Had I fallen through a fracture in the time/space continuum? Had a wormhole of hermeneutical "discontinuity and rupture" drifted through my inbox bringing up something from the past?
But no… I found a new set of diocesan norms for the Motu Proprio.
I received the text of the norms for the implementation of Summorum Pontificum issued by H.E. Most Reverend John F. Kinney, Bishop of Saint Cloud.
Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments. I lost a lot of formatting converting the document to a less clunky form.
In accord with the Apostolic Letter of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, issued motu proprio on July 7, 2007, and the Holy Father’s accompanying letter to the Bishops of the Church; and in response to requests of the faithful of the Diocese of Saint Cloud, I hereby issue the norms for the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist according to the extraordinary form (forma extraordinaria) following the 1962 Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII. [I am forced to muse on the reasons why dioceses need norms for Summorum Pontificum. Wouldn’t it be better to work with the Motu Proprio itself… while we await the document that will clarify some of the confusing points?]
In past years, such Masses with the permissions required at the time were celebrated at Saint Mary’s Cathedral and in more recent times, at Sacred Heart Church in Flensburg. With Summorum Pontificum, I received renewed requests from members of the faithful for such celebrations in the Saint Cloud area as well.
It is my intention that the forma extraordinaria of the Mass will continue to be celebrated according to current practice at Sacred Heart Church in Flensburg as long as both a capable celebrant and a stable community of the faithful who request it remain present to allow for this celebration.
In addition to the Mass in Flensburg, and hearing those requests from the faithful, I intend to make the cerebration of Mass in the forma extraordinaria available in the Saint Cloud metro area as well. [You know.. that’s great! The bishop intends to do this. Wonderful! At the same time, remember that the Motu Proprio says that pastors of parishes can do this on their own. I bring this up only to remind that the Pope put this matter in the hands of priests.] Therefore, beginning , 2008, I hereby designate the Church of Saint John Cantius in Saint Cloud as the place for this celebration of one Mass in the forma extraordinaria on all Sundays and holy days of obligation, as assigned in the Ordo of the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. This celebration of the extraordinary form is to be scheduled on a regular and stable basis in consultation with the pastor of the Church of Saint John Cantius, in consideration of and with precedence to the existing parish schedule for Mass and other liturgical rites and parish activities. [Note that this is not a "personal parish". All Extraordinary Form Masses seem to be taking a secondary role in the parish. But remember: the parish priest can do this without the bishop being involved. My concern is that this gives the impression that the bishop’s permission is needed to do with this "decree" established. Again, it is wonderful that the bishop want to be supportive. But let’s not distort what Summorum Pontificum established.]
All other details regarding these celebrations are outlined in the accompanying norms.
I am grateful for the faith and dedication to the Church demonstrated by those who have contacted me regarding the celebration of the forma extraordinaria. It is my hope that these norms will help meet the spiritual needs of the faithful of the Diocese and achieve the "interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church" and the unity that motivated Pope Benedict XVI to issue Summorum Pontificum.
Sincerely in Christ,
+ John F. Kinney Bishop of Saint Cloud
NORMS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER MOTU PROPRIO OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM IN THE DIOCESE OF SAINT CLOUD
1) In the Diocese of Saint Cloud, the places designated for the celebration of the Mass in Latin, according to the forma extraordinaria as outlined in Summorum Pontificum and following the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII, will be two:
— the Church of the Sacred Heart in Flensburg, as currently
— the Church of Saint John Cantius in Saint Cloud, beginning September 14, 2008
In these churches, one Mass following the forma extraordinaria may be celebrated [because Summorum Pontificum says so] on all Sundays and holy days of obligation according to the liturgical calendar in the 1962 Missal. It may also be celebrated in these churches for funerals and weddings, when the faithful request such celebration, a capable celebrant is available, and the celebration does not conflict with the ordinary liturgical needs of the parish. [All others must go to the back of the bus, or use that other drinking fountain.]
The current Lectionary for Mass may be used for the readings while following the 1962 liturgical calendar. [Really? I wonder how that would go over, but okaaay….] Whatever edition for the Scriptures is used must, however, have received the recognitio of the Holy See.
[Do you see how, more and more, we find that now that Summorum Pontficum is in force, some people want to implement Ecclesia Dei adflicta? Implement the 1988 Motu Proprio which still left the matter entirely in the hands of the bishops regarding public Masses?]
2) The scheduling, requisites for the celebration of the Mass, musicians, and other specific matters pertaining to these celebrations are to be coordinated with the pastor of the host parish or his delegate. All applicable universal and particular laws are to be observed in the celebration of the Mass in the forma extraordinaria and other liturgical rites. [What does aim at, I wonder?]
3) The forma extraordinaria of the Mass in these churches will be celebrated by priests designated by the local ordinary; these priests must possess the required liturgical formation and facility in the Latin language to allow for a truly reverent and fitting celebration of the Mass. [How is that decided?]
4) The people who participate in the forma extraordinaria of the Mass are not constituted as a personal parish, but remain members of the parish in which they reside, in accord with canon 102 of the Code of Canon Law, with all the rights and responsibilities attached thereto.
5) Offerings made for these celebrations of the Mass for a specific intention will be the property of the celebrant. Offerings made in a collection among the faithful will be the property of the host parish, who will administer these funds through a separate account. [A separate account.] The host parish will pay a stipend, determined by the diocesan chancellor, to the celebrant of each Mass, and will make available funds from this separate account for the payment for requisites for celebration of the Mass in the forma extraordinaria in that church at the direction of the diocesan chancellor. [Okay… something is becoming clearer. There are questions of the administration of the funds that a) result from these Mass and b) are required to reimburse the parish and priests. Perhaps this is the motivation for this set of "norms"?]
6) For the administration of the sacraments of Baptism, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, and Marriage: Summorum Pontificum directs that the pastor of the place, all things duly considered, may grant permission for the administration of these sacraments according to the older ritual in force in 1962 if the good of souls suggests it. I hereby direct that the administration of the aforementioned sacraments may take place according to the older ritual at the Church of the Sacred Heart in Flensburg and the Church of Saint John Cantus in Saint Cloud under the following conditions:
a) the recipients of the sacraments are properly disposed, [This would be the case for the reception of any sacrament with any book, right? For example, careful consideration of the state of couples requesting marriage in a Catholic parish would be carefully reviewed? The level of preparation for candidates for confirmation? The level of competence in Latin for candidates for ordination, as per the 1983 Code of Canon Law? So… this is clearly reasonable.] ask at opportune times, and are not impeded by law (canon 843);
b) the recipients of the sacraments are properly prepared for their reception according to applicable diocesan standards and all other universal or particular laws;
c) the recipients of the sacraments, or those legitimately responsible for them in the case of minors, request such a celebration according to the older ritual on their own volition;
d) the faithful remain free to request these sacraments according to the current rituals as well;
e) as applicable, the celebration of these sacraments as well as funerals are to be recorded in the parish where they are celebrated, with notification to the parish of baptism, in accord with Canon Law.
7) As regards the celebration of First Communion and First Penance: children are to be prepared in accord with the program of their proper parish and are to receive these sacraments first in the ordinary form. [Huh? They are not permitted… according to their right… to have a sacrament in the older form? What if the parents desire that they have First Communion in a TLM? If a person is well-disposed, properly disposed and prepared, as it must be assumed First Communicants are, then … it is right to impede them from exercising their rights? Can one really impose this choice on parents and their children? I know that the Code says that pastors of souls have their role in the decision process about the proper moment of First Penance and Communion, but can he determine that they may not make that Communion at a TLM?] If, afterwards, they and their families choose to celebrate these sacraments according to the older ritual, they may do so. Because of the concrete circumstances of availability of these two forms, facility in receiving these sacraments in both the ordinary and extraordinary form is encouraged. [I suspect that this would not hold up were someone to ask the Pontifical Commission about it. Just a guess.]
8) As regards the sacrament of Confirmation, candidates for Confirmation are to be prepared in accord with the program of their proper parish and receive this sacrament in their proper parish in the ordinary form.
9) These norms will be adapted as may be necessary to conform to the direction of the Holy See. All other questions that may arise regarding the Mass or other sacraments according to the forma extraordinaria are to be directed to the Chancery of the Diocese. [Remembering always that every Catholic also has the right to recourse directly to the Holy See.]
Given at the Chancery of the diocese of Saint Cloud,
Most Reverend John F. Kinney Bishop of Saint Cloud
There are a few puzzling things here.
First of all: why the norms at all? It has been a long time since we have seen that flurry of activity about Summorum Pontificum from chanceries. So, something must have prompted this, especially in light of the fact that the Holy Father has on his desk a document which might change all this. So, I am guessing that they arose from some tussle or other.
I note with interest that these norms deal with money. I think that is reasonable.
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking, as many people do, that anything having to do with Church is "free". Someone, somehow, has to pay for the upkeep of the church and the just compensation of the priest. Priests don’t do things just for money, generally. But they have expenses and the right to have their living from the Lord’s altar. This has to be regulated in some way. The norms bring a little clarity to that. I think it is reasonable also to require that if people want to have X,Y, or Z in a parish, they should also provide the means so that it can be done.
There are probably local dynamics here. People will chime in, I am sure.
At last, however, two things are bothersome.
I am not so concerned about the use the Novus Ordo Lectionary with the 1962MR as I am about the following.
First, I cannot get my head around requiring, or trying to require, that parents may not have their children receive First Communion at an Extraordinary Form Mass. That reminds me of the uncharitable manipulations of seminary faculty and chancery people who want to place a seminarian or priest somewhere quite wrong for that individual, or parish, so as to "stretch" him. Try to force him into some sort of "mainstream" which is perceived as superior to what the guy is is inclined to or – in most cases – actually suited to. So… imagine now a family who has been involved in some independent chapel or a slip-off group such as the SSPX or sedevacantists, or some family driving many miles for a TLM, because that is all they want to attend according to their sensibilities. They intended to attend only the TLM, as a family, in the future. These people have to go to a Novus Ordo Mass for Junior’s first Hooly Communion? Is that the right thing to impose? Take away the parents legitimate right to attend the form of Mass that is legitimately made available in a legitimate church or chapel of Holy Catholic Church in the Roman Rite to which they belong?
Second, I must repeat, now that Summorum Pontificum is out, we see willingness on the part of some to implement Ecclesia Dei adflicta. We should be very aware of this trend.
Why is it that so often bishops are the biggest obstacle to good liturgy?
It looks like families can’t get their kids confirmed at the same time as First Communion, either. No matter what, they have to go through whatever annoying service hours and co-ed retreats and stuff is mandated by their parish, and they have to wait till 8th grade. (It also would seem to prevent RCIA families from having their kids confirmed at the same time as everybody else.)
Oh, and it also seems to prevent priests from saying the EF in a parish without getting a permission slip. I thought priests could say Mass for themselves in any parish?
Sigh. Why make all these rules? Seems way too much trouble for the bishop.
If memory serves, wasn’t Bishop Kinney the one who brought us, through parliamentary hocus-pocus, Bishop Trautman’s second term of unhappy memory at the BCL?
My policy on first holy communion is that a child either receives at a NO mass kneeling and on the tongue or at our EF mass.It is up to the parent.If a child wishes to receive at our EF mass they must bring a lettet of permission from their pastor.
Perhaps His Holiness needs to issue a third motu proprio on the subject, and then Summorum Pontificum will be enforced!
What struck me most about these norms is their imperative tone. I wonder if it is reflective of this Bishop’s psychological makeup, or the environment he operates in requires it, or a mixture of both? [Shouldn’t norms have an imperative tone? Isn’t that the point of a norm?]
His insistence that the First Communion cannot be administered via the Extraordinary Form seems capricious, a form of tribute to be exacted from the traditionalists. On the other hand, there may be some sort of inner dynamic within this curious Diocese that is forcing this Bishop’s hand.
Dear Father Z:
You are right, norms, by their definition, should have an imperative tone. However, I think we’ll agree that an imperative tone can be controlled by degrees.
So, please allow me to rephrase my comment to make it more exact: it is the very high degree of the imperative tone that struck me the most in this norm.
I agree with Fr. Z that the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum in 2007 seems now to be bringing forth a willingness (hitherto unseen) to implement the motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei adflicta” of 1988. He says we should be aware of this. I would put it more strongy : Beware of this. The restrictions in force in 1988 no longer apply. Beware people trying to apply those restrictions as if they were still in force.
I am a bit surprised that the Bishop doesn’t list Saint John’s Abbey and University as among the locations where regular EF masses are celebrated. These institutions are in the Diocese of Saint Cloud. This is my old seminary, and one known quite well for its liturgical apostolate.
Is this to say that St John’s has not yet implemented Summorum Pontificum? If not, why not?
p.s. Brother Dietrich Reinhardt, President of the University has recently been diagnosed with rather serious cancer. Please keep him and the community in your prayers.
I agree with Fr. Z that the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum in 2007 seems now to be bringing forth a willingness (hitherto unseen) to implement the motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei adflicta” of 1988
I’m wondering if it’s more like Quattuor Abhinc Annos!
Everytime I read these statements from Bishops, I wonder where the true schism lies…
As a St. Cloud native I feel I should clear up a point so no-one gets a wrong impression of our wonderful bishop. We had a daily Latin Mass available at St. Mary’s Cathedral for many years Mondays-Fridays and it only ended about a year ago due to the unfortunate illness of the priest who primarily said it. Certain parishes have also always had it for special feast days such as Divine Mercy Sunday. There are several young priests in the diocese who are learning the extraordinary form and are preparing to start it in their parishes including restarting it at the Cathedral church. We’ve just had re-assignments so our priests are in the process of moving and the diocese is clustering parishes at the same time so lots going on right now.
I forgot to mention, don’t expect it at St. John’s University anytime soon. Its a training ground for Liturgical terrorists.
A few notes on the situation:
Fr. Z. suspects a ‘tussle’ has occurred. Perhaps that is the best way to phrase events.
At the time the Motu Proprio went into effect no pastor volunteered to implement the Motu Proprio in his parish and no pastor responded to a request to begin a celebration of Mass within his parish, according to the Extraordinary Form. In fact, the (probably the most conservative in the ‘city’) pastor approached on the matter wanted to defer to the bishop. That is a main reason why the bishop is directly involved. A reason for the lack of action on the part of any pastor in this part of the diocese(or any part of it) is the opposition to the old rites here, on the part of the chancery.
Written requests that the bishop respond to the situation by initiating a celebration in the main town of this diocese were made at the time the Motu Proprio took effect. The bishop responded that he was appointing an implementation committee. However, little to no action occurred; when action did occur it was primarily due to repeated verbal requests that something be done. Essentially, this received only reluctant attention from chancery officials.
The matter dragged to a point where additional letters were sent to the bishop ‘lamenting’ the delays of almost a year, and a letter was sent to the Ecclesia Dei Commission noting the local correspondence as evidence of the difficulties of implementing the Motu Proprio.
Finally, some priests have agreed to learn/re-learn the Extraordinary Form, and the EF celebration should begin in the next month or so. . . . but it has been a long wait.
I agree with Fr. Z’s assessment; article 7 is questionable. Otherwise the document provides some reasonable stipulations, such as those regarding finances, which would need some specificity given the ‘non-parish’ situation. (Although I, for one, would like to just join the parish where the EF celebration will occur. I happen to know many people there who currently attend the Ordinary Form.)
Aside from this particular situation, more priests need to be made aware of the ancient rites and encouraged to learn them, as is the case everywhere.
Saint Cloud, MN
Your explanation makes sense, seems like a lot of re-shuffling is going on and the Bishop is simply handling it with a firm hand. What about the issue of the First Communion? How do you read it?
Regarding Virgil’s comment:
“I am a bit surprised that the Bishop doesn’t list Saint John’s Abbey and University as among the locations where regular EF masses are celebrated. These institutions are in the Diocese of Saint Cloud. This is my old seminary, and one known quite well for its liturgical apostolate.”
Currently, and for the last 40+ yrs, Saint John’s Abbey and University is/has been the avante garde for the liturgical changes. It is, and was, home to quite a few dissenters on Humanae Vitae(Fr. Paul Marx, God bless him, is a notable exception), the issue of women’s ordination, and many other doctrines. Ironically, 2 of the priests who’ve volunteered to say the EF in the local parish, are Benedictines from that abbey. I haven’t met them; I pray that they are orthodox and sincere in their attention to proper celebration of the Extraordinary Form.
A few weeks ago, when delivering some EF training materials from the FSSP to one of the monks, I happened upon the university choir practicing the ‘Te Deum’. It was beautiful; if they’d learn some of the traditional, latin Mass compositions, I’d love it if they’d come to sing at the Gregorian Mass.
Regarding Steven Anderson’s comment:
The ‘indult’ Mass celebrated in the cathedral crypt was cancelled at least six years ago. The only other Traditional Latin Mass celebrated with diocesan approval during that time and currently, is 40 miles distant from the city of Saint Cloud.
If there was a Latin Mass, it was the Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin. If there was a regular Latin Novus Ordo here, I wasn’t aware of it.
If there are young priests here who are learning to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, Steven should let me know. There are people here who would love to know that, and provide prayer support and encouragement. I haven’t heard of this and I’m pretty closely involved in efforts relating to promoting the EF in this diocese.
The first thing which puzzled me when I read this was the reference to requesting the old rites of ones “own volition”, which seemed odd especially in the context of the new rite’s imposition almost everywhere these last few decades, no matter what the faithful might wish. But then the reference to first confession and first communion stunned me.
My youngest son has recently made his first confession and communion. He was prepared by his mother, entirely independently of both his school and our parish (indeed, although he is already nine years old his classmates have yet to begin their own preparation). He made his first confession to a sympathetic local priest whom we know quite well. He made his first communion at the traditional mass which we attend regularly in another parish (not even in our own diocese). There was no fuss.
All this was in England. I suppose it must be different in America. I should be interested to know how things work there. Fr. McAfee requires a letter of permission from the child’s pastor. Why? What difference does it make? What if he were to say “no”?
Fr. McAfee requires a letter of permission from the child’s pastor. Why? What difference does it make?
Probably so he can make sure the child is disposed.
He seems to be talking about people from another parish (which presumably does not offer the EF) having their child receive their first communion at his parish. That seems reasonable. His own parishioners obviously don’t need a letter from their pastor.
As far as the first communion stipulation, I take it as children are required to have their first communion, confession and confirmation in their home parish. This has always been required as far as I can remember in our diocese and I believe its so the parish priest can be assured the candidate is properly prepared.
I take it as children are required to have their first communion, confession and confirmation in their home parish.
This is not a requirement as far as I know. For example, students in private Catholic schools are prepared for and receive First Holy Communion along with their classmates, not in their home parishes.
sorry dcs, I meant its required in our diocese. It may not even be a hard and fast rule as far as I know. As I understand it though parochial school kids are prepared in school here and private school kids in the parish center. our parish priests are involved in the education in both groups. and the kids come together for the first time for confession, First Holy Communion and confirmation at their home parish.
Thanks for continuing to persist that the Motu Proprio is about priests! One thing I notice strongly worded and repeated is that “THESE” two parishes will be the locations for the TLM. Nonsense! According to SP, any parish can. I know that in both parishes I have been in, I have offered it. Likewise, in every other parish I will be assigned to in my diocese, I will offer it there. Our Lady, get the Bishops out of the way!
To me the opposition to S.P. is sheer lunacy.
When offering the extraordinary form Gospel I know that if I preach on life issues, the importance of staying in the state of grace, frequent confession, or anything that a Catholic MUST DO to be Catholic, the congregation loves it. When I do similary in ordinary form Masses many are appreciative, but there are always some who are offended. Why is that? Why can’t bishops and chanceries see that people love the extraordinary form because they love what has been taught always and everywhere by the Catholic Church?
Why is it that a parking lot of a church during a Novus Ordo Mass has some Pro-baby killer X for president stickers? Does anyone ever see these stickers in the lot during a TLM?
It seems to me that Steven Anderson and James McCoy have resolved any questions this norm may have raised. Frankly, I don’t see anything odd here, but that’s just my opinion.
I’m left with a bitter aftertaste regarding our analysis of this norm. This isn’t a clear cut case, yet disregarding this, we raised many questions and offered many hasty explanations, without knowing the inside story of this diocese. Many thanks to Mr. Anderson and Mr. McCoy who clarified things for us. I intend to draw proper conclusions regarding myself from this negative experience.
I also wish to withdraw my comment about the First Communion being a tribute exacted from the traditionalists, since the explanation shows the Bishop’s motives to be benign. Mea culpa.
The information presented to Fr. Z. was represented as coming from the chancellor of the diocese. However I have not seen the document with the bishop’s signature, and, I have learned that the document was handed out during a meeting of various involved parties(laity, priests who will be saying the Mass, the pastor, and the chancellor) by a priest member of the local committee working on this matter. So, this might not be the final form. My sincere apology for that since I’m the one who sent this to Fr. Z. I have no reason to doubt this approximates the final form but that is not the same thing as the actual document.
Again, my apology.
That being said, as it stands in it’s current form, Article 7 regarding First Communion and Penance is problematic, as Fr. Z. notes.
“…now that Summorum Pontficum is in force, some people want to implement Ecclesia Dei adflicta…”
Bene dixisti, optime Z.
The logical solution: a new Motu Proprio, (call it what you like, “Ecclesia Dei liberata”, “Tredecim abhinc menses”) removing all restrictions of any sort on the traditional Mass, and declaring it to be the Ordinary Liturgy of the Roman Rite. Then the bishops can begin implementing Summorum Pontificum.
Best news I gleaned from all of this is that priests of the diocese are being trained in the EF. That’s HUGE! Wouldn’t have happened with
Summorum Pontificum. Tom
Father Z, perhaps you could send him a little note with your comments about First Holy Communion. You are 100 % correct. Do Priests ever interact this way? Via “notes”? and how would the reaction be if he were to receive a note from you? Are you allowed?
A few years ago, I prepared my son for confirmation at home using orthodox materials. I myself studied with the Marian Catechist program so I would be prepared to teach. My sons and other homeschoolers were confirmed in another diocese with the permission of a pastor and that bishop. Since I had no animosity with my pastor, I did let him know what we were doing. And the parish program was evolving-at that time- to a more faithful program. This pastor has left and now the program is terrible again.
I know of others, especially homseschoolers, who have their children receive their sacraments in other parishes and even dioceses. There are very good reasons why parents may feel the need to do this. For example, I got special permission for my one son to have first confession ONLY A YEAR AFTER First Communion! My other son did not go to confession until 4 years later! My sons were taught that going to communion is like going to Grandms’s for a cooker and taught some strange abreviated form of a one decade ‘rosary’ that was not even the Hail Mary.
If this were 10 years ago, knowing what I do now and living where I do now, I would travel the 70 miles to the FSSP parish for my children to receive the sacraments. Plain and simple. I wish for them to know the WHOLE TRUTH of the faith and the sacraments and not some abbreviated or perverted instruction.
Gregorius: “Tredecim abhinc menses”) removing all restrictions of any sort on the traditional Mass, and declaring it to be the Ordinary Liturgy of the Roman Rite. Then the bishops can begin implementing Summorum Pontificum.
I understand your reasoning here: in order simply to get what the Motu Proprio says, which still has restrictions, the whole thing has to be totally unrestricted. Maybe then they will implement that last document.
I’m not sure why the guidelines for the Latin Mass at the Cathedral of St. Mary’s in St. Cloud was neccessary. My understanding is that any priest has the right to say the Traditional Latin Mass. Any local norms should be established by the pastor. In this case the bishop is the pastor.
Also, any monies collected should be given directly to the parish in which the Mass is said. Not collected by the chancery. The issue here seems to be about control and control of monies. I’m not a fan of the traditional Latin Mass, although I have used it. I prefer people hear the Mass in a language they can understand and that they participate and respond. However, the contemporary Mass has significant theological problems. Why not go back to the original Mass and translate it into the venacular? This would solve all the problems and we would truly have one Mass for both Latin and Venacular communities.