You will recall that His Eminence the Archbishop of Manila, Card. Rosales, had originally imposed severe restrictions on the provisions enacted by the Supreme Pontiff in Summorum Pontificum.
Those restrictions were so clearly out of step with the Church’s law and the intent of the Motu Proprio that Card. Castrillon, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", intervened to explain the situation to Card. Rosales.
Now the Archdiocese of Manilia as a new page on its website with a "Clarification" about Summorum Pontificum.
Let’s look at it with my emphases and comments.
Episcopal Commission on Liturgy
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the PhilippinesClarifications on Summorum Pontificum
Pope Benedict XVI published the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007 with effectivity on September 14, 2007. The Episcopal Commission on Liturgy received several requests to clarify certain issues [that’s one way to put it] regarding its contents and implementation.
* What is the aim of the Apostolic Letter?
The Apostolic Letter was published to seek “interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church”, that is, with those who still adhere to the Missal of Pius V. It is also a reaction to what is perceived as “abuses” in the celebration of the Mass after Vatican II. [Several things. First, this is an attempt to place the people who "still" adhere, benighted as they are, in a time frame so far in the past ("Pius V") that they cannot be considered normal. Second, it think this Clarification suggested that the Pope is a "reactionary". Third, there are more than "perceived ‘abuses’" going on. Fourth, the MP is not simply about abuses. It is about restoring to a place a dignity sacred rites of Holy Church where were never abrogated. The Pope is working through these provisions not to throw a sop to the abnormal, or to reconcile groups, but to reconcile a vast rupture in the identity of the mainstream Church.]
* Are there now two rites of the Roman Missal?
Summorum Pontificum distinguishes two forms of celebrating the one and the same Roman Rite, namely, “forma ordinaria” and “forma extraordinaria”. The ordinary form is the 1970 Missal of Pope Paul VI revised by authority of Vatican II. The extraordinary form is the Tridentine Missal [Well.. not really "Tridentine", but let that pass. However, the fact that it is called "Tridentine" here suggests to me that the person who drafted this has not been keeping up on his reading about these issues.] published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII.
* What would be an implication of the “forma extraordinaria” of the Roman Missal? [What sort of question is this?]
The hermeneutics of continuity means that the 1970 Missal is a Vatican II revision of the Tridentine, [?] while the hermeneutics of legitimate progress could justify the inclusion of inculturated liturgies as other extraordinary forms of the same Roman Rite. [HUH? What the…! The writer has taken this opportunity to interpolate something that is his own pet project. He creates a term "hermeneutics of legitimate progress" and places it together with something the Pope proposed. He is trying to instrumentalize the MP for his own purposes. First, the "hermeneutics of continuity" is not a phrase that appears in Summorum Pontificum. It is extrapolated as a conclusion from remarks made by Pope Benedict in Dec. 2005 to the Roman Curia. But what Pope Benedict was talking about with his explication of a "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" as opposed to a "hermeneutic of reform" (e.g., "hermeneutic of continuity") has far greater implications than a singular application to the Missale Romanum. The writer introduces a third idea and tries to blend it into the Popes proposition. This is what the writer did: Since the Missal of Pius V is culturally circumscribed, and since we have two forms of the Roman Rite, we can therefore justify any number of forms of the Roman Rite, each inculturated according to its own cultural circumscriptions. This is claimed to be an "implication" of Summorum Pontificum. This is absurd. I could go on, but you get the point.]
* What are some of the important conditions for celebrating according to the 1962 Missal?
Those who wish to celebrate it should possess “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language”. Furthermore, the Missal to be used should be the 1962 edition. [This insistence on 1962 supports what I said earlier about the reference to "Pius V".] It is important to remember that the 1962 Missal requires the use of the Latin language (except for the readings and the homily), particular liturgical furnishings, vestments, books, and liturgical calendar. [So… you can use vernacular readings and the new calendar.] Lastly, in order to be in full communion with the Church, priests who celebrate according to the 1962 Missal must, as a matter of principle, accept the validity of the 1970 Missal.
* What other liturgical rites are included in the permission?
Besides the 1962 Roman Missal, permission is granted to use the other Tridentine Rituals of baptism, confirmation, marriage, penance, anointing of the sick, funerals, and the Roman Breviary. The Apostolic Letter excludes the Easter Triduum [Umm…. it doesn’t exclude the Triduum. The MP mentions the Triduum in Art. 2, which begins, "Art. 2 In Masses celebrated without the people….".
Clearly in those places where the EF is celebrated with people it is possible to have the Sacred Triduum with the older Missal. This is in fact being done around the world. Furthermore, the Holy Father would not have bothered to alter a prayer for Good Friday if the texts for the Triduum were not to be used.] and is silent about holy orders. [It is silent about Holy Orders. But Bishops can use the Pontificale Romanum for consecration of churches and for confirmations, etc. A bishop could chose to use it for Holy Order too, right?]* How about the seminaries?
Summorum Pontificum does not directly address the question of celebrating the Tridentine Missal in seminaries. [It is silent. However, if there are two forms of the Roman Rite, then priests of the Roman Rite should know those forms. You can bet seminarians will be pressed to know the "inculturated" forms. If that is the case, by the writer’s argument above, they must be trained in the two formal forms of the Rite. Futhermore, the PCED has expressed that seminaries must train seminarians. I also remind everyone that the 1983 CIC requires that all seminarians be very well trained in Latin.]
* What is the responsibility of parish priests?
In parishes, where a stable group of the faithful adheres to the 1962 Missal, [I thought it was the missal of "Pius V"…] the parish priest should willingly accept their request. Such Mass maybe [sic] celebrated on weekdays, and once on Sundays and feast days. [Actually, it can be celebrated more than once, provided that adequate celebrations of the Novus Ordo are available for those who prefer to attend them.] The Ordinary shall determine what a “stable group” consists of. [Oh? Says who? This little phrase effectively reduces the provisions of the Supreme Pontiff to what the local ordinary wants to do. He is therefore ready to implement the 1988 MP Ecclesia Dei adflicta but not Summorum Pontificum.]
* What is the responsibility of bishops? [It is not the responsibility of the local ordinary to determine what a stable group is….]
If a parish priest fails to satisfy the request for Tridentine Mass, the faithful that request it should inform the Ordinary. If he himself cannot satisfy the request, he should [must] refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Furthermore the Ordinary may [Interesting how this shifts from "responsibility" to "may".] establish a personal parish where the Tridentine rituals may be used, or he may appoint a chaplain for such group of faithful.
* What happens to active participation? [Again… what sort of question is this? What is the real aim?]
While the liturgical reform of the Vatican II aims principally to promote active participation, the Tridentine Missal encourages prayerful meditation during the Eucharistic celebration. [On the surface, that sounds positive, right? But what the real point here is to say that the older form of Mass does not promote active participation. Anyone who wants "active participation" should not go to this form of Mass. The problem here is that the writer is working from a false sense of active participation if he thinks (and clearly he does) that there is a "rupture" in the sense of active participation possible in the two forms of Mass.]
* What happens to the 1970 Missal of Paul VI?
It is useful to note that the Vatican II Missal of Paul VI can always be celebrated in Latin and in Gregorian chant. [Again, Sacrosanctum Concilium says that Mass with the vernacular is the exception, that Latin must be preserved and that Gregorian chant has pride of place. This interjection, useful as it is, stands reality on its head.]
[Watch the word choice here:] Summorum Pontificum gives the assurance that the Missal of Paul VI will certainly remain the ordinary form of the Eucharistic liturgy, given the actual pastoral circumstances of local Churches and the need for more adequate liturgical formation and knowledge of Latin among the faithful.
Conclusion
It is our fervent hope that the implementation of Summorum Pontificum will not, as Pope Benedict XVI desires, divide the heart of the Church, [the writer could have started with the positive, but he chose the negative instead] but rather foster mutual respect and understanding within the one Church of Jesus Christ. Let pastors be mindful that the ordinary form of the Holy Eucharist for the Church today is contained in the Missal of Paul VI [Again? Is this necessary? How scared are they of the older form?] whether this is celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular. As one Church, may we be united in one faith through a diversity of liturgical forms. [Including all those forms which have made-up inculturated elements.]
That in all things God may be glorified!
If I had to summarize this in three words, I would pick: fearful, deceptive and manipulative.
The writer is clearly afraid of the older forms.
The clarification is deceptive in that it stresses only those dimensions of the MP which the writer prefers.
Worse yet, there is a absurd attempt to use the Motu Proprio as a support for "inculturated liturgies"… which has nothing to do with the mind of the Supreme Pontiff in Summorum Pontificum.
Loading ...
The word weasel comes to mind.
It is important to remember that the 1962 Missal requires the use of the Latin language (except for the readings and the homily), particular liturgical furnishings, vestments, books, and liturgical calendar. [So… you can use vernacular readings and the new calendar.]
Yes, you can use the vernacular readings from the ambo AFTER the Latin version at the altar. If you don’t, it’s a ’65 new Mass, not the TLM. And the new calendar, well, why even address such nonsense …
If Summorum Pontificum were used as a reading comprehension test, many (if not most) bishops would fail miserably.
Theodorus:
I see what you’re saying — but you’re giving them too much credit. It’s not that they’re not reading it, it’s that they’re ignoring it.
Think of it this way: if the Holy Father sent them a letter banning the TLM, do you think they’d not implement that?
I wonder if this stuff has not in some way been influenced by the great Filippino guru who spent years pouring out his inculturation rubbish in St. Anselmo? I mean Ansgardo Chapunco!!
Is it worth getting worked up about such things? The reality is that the majority of bishops and priests in the Latin Church couldn’t care less about the Traditional Mass. Decades will pass before (if ever) the Traditional Mass even registers on the collective radar screen of the majority of bishops and priests.
We will be fortunate in the future to find perhaps one parish per diocese that features the Traditional Mass exclusively…and perhaps a few Traditional Masses will be scattered about the remaining parishes.
Pope Benedict XVI made it clear in 2007 that the Novus Ordo will remain the king of Masses within the Latin Church. The Holy Father declared that the “use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.”
That is that. The Traditional Mass, at best, will exist in small measures here and there.
If you look at the directory, I believe this was posted Sept 2007
http://www.rcam.org/liturgical_news/
Since this came from the Episcopal Commission on Liturgy of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines and since it puts too much emphasis on inculturation, surely Fr. Anscar Chapunco the champion of inculturation and liturgical dance has a hand on this. When it comes to liturgy in the Philippines, he is king. Almost all of the diocesan “liturgists” here are trained according to his ideas.
“The word weasel comes to mind.”
In fairness, the Manila “clarification” reflects the attitude the majority of Latin Church bishops, priests, religious and laymen hold regarding the Traditional Mass. The majority of Latin Church bishops and priests are not remotely interested in the Traditional Mass, let alone Novus Ordo Latin Masses.
Even conservative Cardinals and bishops who are not enemies of the Traditional Mass have stated that interest in the Traditional Mass is scant among laymen.
For all practical purposes, clergy and laymen are not interested in the Traditional Mass…or any Mass offered in Latin.
The Latin Church is in a state of collapse. Mass attendance has collapsed. At best, 15 to 20 percent of Catholics assist an Mass regularly. Therefore, the lack of interest in sound liturgy and traditional liturgy among Latin Catholics isn’t surprising.
The collapse of the Latin Church is really the collapse of St. Peter. He must decided who he is. Is he Novus Ordo Peter? Or is he Traditional Latin Church Peter?
Until Peter decides to return to his liturgical tradition, the sorry state of Latin Church liturgy will continue. In other words, the Pope must return to the Traditional Latin Mass to end the post-Vatican II crisis of faith.
Unfortunately, Pope Benedict XVI has not even offered the Traditional Mass publicly. Therefore, we shouldn’t expect his bishops and priests to do so.
It called…follow the leader.
Promulgating Summorum Pontificum (just another Vatican document) is one thing…offering the Traditional Mass publicly (and regularly) is another thing.
Actions speak louder than words.
On the off chance that Chapunco might have something to do with this I went on to the official website of the Philippine Bishops Conference – and guess what? Chupungco is the secretary of the liturgical commission of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. The inculturation bit was the give away. Blame this on Chupungco and his vindictive campaign against the TLM. Read all about it:
http://www.cbcponline.net/commissions/liturgy.html
COMMISSION ON LITURGY
(ECLIT)
The Episcopal Commission on Liturgy started functioning as an organization thirty-one years ago. It has been implementing the provisions of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy promulgated on December 3, 1963.
There are ten areas wherein the Commission has been involved and has rendered service all these years.
The Commission has effectively prepared the clergy and laity in the Philippines towards a full, active and conscious participation in the Sacred Liturgy.
It has adequately provided direction in coping with the manychanges envisioned by the Second Vatican Council, specially where extraordinary decisions had to be arrived at in relation to Liturgy.
It has given encouragement and assistance for the translation of liturgical books into the vernacular dialects of the Philippines.
Areas have been explored for the possibilities of cultural adaptations of the Sacred Liturgy where tribal or minority groups are involved.
It has been regularly updating the clergy and key lay leaders in many regions and dioceses on the Sacred Liturgy.
It has complied with requests for the preparation of materials needed for various celebrations on national and diocesan levels.
The Commission has often been involved in consultations where it has offered suggestions or solutions involving interdisciplinary activities and decisions.
It has served as a coordinating body for negotiations with the Apostolic See and other international groups also involved in Liturgy.
It has resolved many key issues on Liturgy which have much study and patience.
It has successfully organized meetings of experts and diocesan directors of commissions on Sacred Liturgy to address particular needs and concerns.
Leadership for the Commission has been provided by Archbishop Lino Gonzaga, Bishop William Brasseur, CICM, Archbishop Jesus Dosado, CM, and Archbishop Onesimo Gordoncillo from 1964 to 1995.
At present the Commissions’ focus is towards adequate fulfillment of Pope John Paul II’s concern with inculturation for renewed evangelization, and the formation of Basic Ecclesial Communities whose celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy give witness to the vitality of Christian life.
Chairman:
Bp. Romulo G. Valles
Vice Chairman:
Abp. Onesimo C. Gordoncillo
Members:
Bp. Arturo M. Bastes, SVD
Abp. Jesus A. Dosado, CM
Bp. John F. Du
Bp. Julito B. Cortes
Bp. Romulo T. dela Cruz
Executive Secretary:
Dom Anscar Chupungco, OSB
Address:
Abbey of Our Lady of Monserrat
San Beda College
E. Mendiola, San Miguel
1005 Manila
Telefax: 735-5994
e-mail: anscar@sbc.edu.ph
liturgy@cbcpworld.com
“The writer is clearly afraid of the older forms.”
Which begs the question…WHY? Why does “anything go” EXCEPT the TLM?
The reaction to the interest in the TLM is disproportionate and hostile especially since it is presented by its detractors as something irrelevant the laity “didn’t understand”, etc.
I don’t envy Pope Benedict his job. But this opposition to the TLM could be an opportunity for the Pope to “clarify” and insist that the TLM be made available in each parish to those who desire it.
Yes, I have it on very good authority that it was Fr. Chupungco who made these Clarifications (note the “That in all things God may be glorified”.) However, he did not write the “Manila Guidelines”, which is (I’m told) the work of a zealous disciple.
In the Philippines, there is a drive for more celebrations of the illicit “Misa ng Bayang Pilipino” (Mass of the Filipino People) which really models the Mass upon a “fiesta” and which is incredibly inculturated. This was Fr. Chupungco’s pet project.
Side by side this are calls from some Filipino liturgists for a radical simplification of ferial Masses (no Kyrie, no Agnus Dei, no prayers during the Preparation of the Gifts, communion immediately after the Our Father, etc.)
By the way, Fr. Zuhlsdorf seems to have forgotten that he already fisked
this article in 2007. However, this new fisking is a lot longer and stronger, so thanks again, Father Z!
It seems to me that SP is a restoration of a venerable liturgical rite. I don’t know why I should be an outcast simply because I adore the Mass of my youth.
Just a point here, Father Z.
I’ve noticed some of your posts speak of the usage of terms like Tridentine as if it were a deliberate misuse of the term.
However some people refer to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as the “Tridentine” or the “Mass of St. Pius V.” because that is what some of the proponents refer to it as.
It’s not for me to psychoanalyze of course, but those most of those proponents of the OF who use these terms seem to want to contrast the EF and the OF of the Mass.
Those of us who have used terms like Tridentine don’t always have an axe to grind here
It would be nice to see the actual Letter sent by the Holy See (PCED?) to the Archdiocese of Manila.
As for the “heremeneutics of legitimate progress” crap, that only goes to show an attempt at changing what the Pope said.
“Side by side this are calls from some Filipino liturgists for a radical simplification of ferial Masses (no Kyrie, no Agnus Dei, no prayers during the Preparation of the Gifts, communion immediately after the Our Father, etc.)”
Carlos – do you have any back-up material on this? Articles, documents, blogsites, etc? I’d like to see some of the serious liturgical (or gasp! pastoral) reasoning – if that’s even possible – behind the deletions.
BTW: I bought the ‘Misa ng Bayang Pilipino’ when I returned to the Philippines for my thanksgiving after my ordination in 2004.
Dreadful – the Philippines and Filipino culture was formed by Catholic Spain, by the Catholic Church, using the Missale Romanum (more likely the Missale Toletano in the earliest days of the Evangelization).
How can one separate Rome/Catholicism/Spain/Philippines? Is it even possible, if you seriously gave it thought.
Thanks.
Sigh…what a strange world we live in when such bishops are in “full communion” with the Pope and the SSPX isn’t.
It is our fervent hope that the implementation of Summorum Pontificum will not, as Pope Benedict XVI desires, divide the heart of the Church…
There’s no way that makes sense in English unless we’re expected to believe that the Pope wants SP to divide the Church.
It is my fervent hope that English isn’t the vernacular in the Philippines.
Carlos: “In the Philippines, there is a drive for more celebrations of the illicit “Misa ng Bayang Pilipino” (Mass of the Filipino People) which really models the Mass upon a “fiesta” and which is incredibly inculturated. This was Fr. Chupungco’s pet project.”
I attended some of these inculturated masses. They put in elements from tribal culture of the indegenous peoples of the Philippines. Yet I don’t feel any association because because the culture of these tribes is not MY culture. For me true Inculturated Filipino liturgy is a return to filipino-hispanic liturgical practices as practiced during Spanish times which is the reflection of the true christian culture of the country.
I am sure the Holy Father receives thousands of requests for him to celebrate Mass according to the books of 1962. I often wonder what goes through his mind when he decides to celebrate Mass day after day, month after month, using only the NO. He has stated over and over that the 1962 books have a living place in the liturgical life of the Church. But yet the decision not to celebrate it remains queer, as if something is wrong. The MP was the personal choice of the Pope, isn’t Mass celebration as well? And if the answer is that he knows very well the consternation it will stir then why issue the MP at all? As an attendee of the UA Mass I would like to know that my Pope, our Pope celebrates this liturgy as well. Otherwise does it not seem as a divide by not celebrating it? It appears to many and perpetuates the myth that there is something not right about celebrating using the 1962 Missal. It just seems logical that without all the decrees and statements that he would just celebrate this form of Mass, not once, but on equal footing with the NO in order to substantiate what he says is part of the life of the Church. Maybe a Bishop or two would think twice before throwing up roadblocks to something that people see going on in the Vatican and St. Peter’s pretty often. Does tat sound so far off base? In the end doesn’t he want all Priests to lead the way by re-educating lay people and faliliarizing them with this form of Mass? Isn’t it the Holy Father who leads by example his Priests? Maybe I am missing something.
Guys,
Is it just me or what… But I see a parallel here. Chupungco is doing to the philippine church what Bugnini did to the whole church. Both fabricated a mass from a committee and both imposed their fabricated masses to the people.
“Which begs the question…WHY? Why does “anything go” EXCEPT the TLM?”
Kate;
Because, if the TLM were readily available to contrast with the OF, it would be readily apparent what an absolute failure the OF is in most locations. I’m not being flippant or sarcastic here…. that is the reason why they are afraid of its availablity to more than a small handful of already interested Catholics. The Ecclesiology (?) of the TLM flies in the face of all that many of these Bishops and Priests believe in – The Real Presence, Reverence, The special nature of the priesthood, The sinfulness and unworthiness of man…. the list keeps going. What is going to happen if people start expecting Priests to be HOLY?? That is why they fear and block…
And… it seems like yet another letter should be written from PCED saying in effect…
“Uh… not quite got it yet… try again, or better yet, just publish the Motu proprio in your newspaper so that all can see what it says for themselves..”
“Carlos – do you have any back-up material on this? Articles, documents, blogsites, etc? I’d like to see some of the serious liturgical (or gasp! pastoral) reasoning – if that’s even possible – behind the deletions.”
The proceedings of the 2006 Theology Week in the University of Santo Tomas, the Philippines’ sole Pontifical University (located in Manila), very recently published, contains an article (a speech, actually, delivered before the Philippines’ theological “top brass”) calling for these deletions. The only rationale given is that of “progressive solemnity”
I guess 25-30 minutes for daily Mass is just too much, it’s got to be cut
down to only 10-15 minutes.
The 2006 article is totally dependent on a 2004 article by… Anscar Chupungco.
“BTW: I bought the ‘Misa ng Bayang Pilipino’ when I returned to the Philippines for my thanksgiving after my ordination in 2004.
Dreadful – the Philippines and Filipino culture was formed by Catholic Spain, by the Catholic Church, using the Missale Romanum (more likely the Missale Toletano in the earliest days of the Evangelization).”
It is politically incorrect in the Philippines to refer to Spanish rule as being beneficial. That kind of thinking has infiltrated into the local Church, hence the appalling indifference to our Spanish-era ecclesiastical heritage.
Since the 1960’s up to the present, the tendency in Filipino academe has been to equate genuine
Filipino culture with the culture of the pagan mountain tribes and the Muslims
of Mindanao (who don’t even see themselves as Filipino).
If you think the Misa ng Bayang Pilipino is dreadful, the inculturated Masses
incorporating Muslim practices (done in the Prelature of Marawi) and the
liturgies with the infusion of pagan rites and practices (in tribal areas)
are far worse. A couple of years ago there was an ordination wherein tribal
elders first “exorcized” the church building, before themselves taking part
in some of the actual rites of ordination (along with the bishop).
Does the author of the ‘clarification’ really mean to say that BXVI intends to ‘divide the heart of the Church’? Veeery strong words.
Quite a linguistic high wire act – have to give the writer credit for it. The logic of this letter is like a ride on some deranged roller coaster, but at least some things are clear to me:
Exposure of the faithful to the Traditional Mass must be limited as much as possible, and the propaganda campaign against it must continue. This Mass must be portrayed as divisive. If it is not possible to banish the Traditional Mass altogether, it should be carefully contained and controlled within ghettos, where hopefully it’ll die a natural death under a more progressive Pope.
Such unjust tactics will not work in the long run. Those who are not ideologically opposed to Catholic Tradition should realize that the Traditional Mass can be a friend and a patron of the Novus Ordo Mass. Outside of this Tradition, the Novus Ordo Mass continues to be under the control of far too many questionable influences.
“It is our fervent hope that the implementation of Summorum Pontificum will not, as Pope Benedict XVI desires, divide the heart of the Church,”
Horrible construction. Truly horrific English. The clarification deserves as much of a censure as does the original letter.
Being a Latin-rite Catholic: One continuous penance and near occasion of sin.
I found it interesting that the MP states that the reading may be proclaimed “etiam” in the vernacular. This would seem to suggest that the Latin reading and Gospel is still required and that the readings may be read again in the vernacular before the homily or perhaps simultaneously with the Latin readings done in silence.
The only logical explanation for such an answer is that this bishop despises tradition. Why else would following Summorum be such a problem?
The well educated elites in Manila would probably appreciate the Latin mass.
but here in the Provinces, it’s not really an issue…
However, adoration chapels are big…our church just opened one…
I live here in the Philippines. What I can say is that the situation is bad as far as liturgy in the Philippines. The sad part is that many of the middle aged and young clergy received formation from these kind of sad liturgy. Even the wearing of proper vestments is no longer observed. Right here in the diocese where i belong, many priests do not use albs anymore, they simply use the chuasable and over sized stoles. Many ancient churches were remodeled. Retablos and communion rails removed and changed with the Risen Christ images. Priests are more interested with social justice, and cause oriented issues. Seldom do we see priests interested in the Liturgy and in spirituality.
Nancy: “The well educated elites in Manila would probably appreciate the Latin mass. but here in the Provinces, it’s not really an issue”
Carlos: “It is politically incorrect in the Philippines to refer to Spanish rule as being beneficial. That kind of thinking has infiltrated into the local Church, hence the appalling indifference to our Spanish-era ecclesiastical heritage”.
I don’t think so. I live in the province and latin-spanish culture is embedded deep in our culture. It was just supressed but it is still there lying dormant. The anti latin- spanish spanish sentiments is just superficial forced upon the people by the masonic-inspired fathers of Philippine revolution (the katipuneros).
Here in my place (Archdiocese of Jaro), latin is still very much part of the catholic way of life. Many novenas are still said in latin. The benediction is still chanted in latin. On processions of the blessed sacrament. “O salutaris hostia” is still sung in latin. On good fridays, “Stabat Mater” is still sung in latin. Suring the “encuentro” ceremony on easter sunday the Regina Coeli is still sung by a little girl dressed as an angel as she lifts the black veil form the statue of the Mater Dolorosa. During advent and christmass the ordinary of the mass is still sung in latin in a mass setting called “Missa Pastoril”.
I find it funny that latin survives better in folk catholicism than in th the church institutions.
“The well educated elites in Manila would probably appreciate the Latin mass.”
The oldest and one of the biggest groups of Traditionalists in the Philippines
is based in and around Jaro, Iloilo. Not exactly a big city.
“but here in the Provinces, it’s not really an issue…”
I keep track of the situation in the Philippines and most TLM’s (or requests for
the TLM) are located in the provinces, in the unlikeliest places.
“However, adoration chapels are big…our church just opened one…”
Yes, our adoration chapels are big. Much of the time they are also left
unoccupied. Having the Blessed Sacrament exposed is good only if someone
is actually worshiping in front of it, but leaving it unattended is always
an offense against God. Don’t you realize that this is why there are so many thefts of
monstrances and of the Host in the Philippines?
“Here in my place (Archdiocese of Jaro), latin is still very much part of the catholic way of life. Many novenas are still said in latin.”
Gio, you are lucky in Jaro for the following reasons:
1) Jaro has a Trad community that dates back to the 1980’s
2) You’ve had Archbishops (Piamonte and Lagdameo) who were very friendly to
Latin. Lagdameo is no Traditionalist but he is quite friendly to Traditionalists.
I personally served the 1962 Low Mass that he offered on September 11, 2007
in thanksgiving for Summorum Pontificum.
3) You are in the Visayas, where old-style folk Catholicism has survived in
much better shape than in much of Luzon (northern Philippines) and Mindanao (southern
Philippines). Bohol, Cebu have also preserved many marvelous traditions.
Carlos: “The oldest and one of the biggest groups of Traditionalists in the Philippines
is based in and around Jaro, Iloilo. Not exactly a big city.”
You are correct but not quite. Jaro, from where the title of the archdiocese come from, in itself is not vey big because it is just one of the seven towns or districts that forms Iloilo City which is quite big. Jaro is the last diocese formed under spanish rule, so it is one of the oldest in the country. During spanish times, Jaro is a separate city from Iloilo but the americans merged it with Iloilo and some other neighboring towns to form a bigger city. That is why the city itself is named Iloilo but but the archbishop takes his title from a district within the city named Jaro where the cathedral is located. BTW, Iloilo City is the last capital of the spanish government in the country before the surrendered to the americans.
Carlos: “You’ve had Archbishops (Piamonte and Lagdameo) who were very friendly to
Latin”
Ahhh…. Msgr. Alberto Piamonte. Great canon lawyer, only asian member of the Roman Rota duiing his time. I was very close to him and considered him an uncle. I heared that he converse with curial cardinals and bishops in straight latin.
Carlos Palad describes the Misa ng Bayan Pilipino (Mass of the Filipino People) as ‘illicit’. It was published in the Supplement to the Roman Sacramentary for the Dioceses of the Philippines in 1999, ‘Approved for use by the Catholic bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’, though I think it has been around for longer. I have never been present at a celebration of this particular Mass.
The introduction to the Misa describes it as ‘an official attempt of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines to inculturate the Roman Order of Mass with which it keeps substantial unity. The chief aim of this work of inculturation is to communicate more fully to the Filipino faithful the spiritual and doctrinal wealth of the Mass. Toward this aim Filipino patterns of thought, speech and ritual behavior have been integrated into the rites of the Mass.’
Gio writes about Masses he attended that ‘put in elements from tribal culture of the indigenous peoples of the Philippines’. That may be but the Misa ng Bayang Pilipino doesn’t do that. In a number of places it introduces the ‘mano po’, the sign of respect to elders that is also practiced in East Timor. The child takes his parent’s right hand and put it either to his forehead or lips. Many, old and young, give this sign of respect to the priest at the church door after Mass. Bride and groom give this sign to their own parents and parents-in-law at weddings. At parts of the Misa ministers give this sign to the priest.
In Cebuano ‘mano po’ (Spanish ‘hand’ with a Tagalog word of respect’ is called ‘Amen’ because, I am told, children gave this sign of respect at the end of the Angelus at nightfall, which is around 6pm throughout the year. I’m not sure that families still pray the Angelus together but the ‘Amen’ is still alive and strong, thank God. This is not ‘an element of tribal culture of the indigenous peoples of the Philippines’, as far as I know, but of the majority who are of Malay origin and mostly Catholic. (It may be a practice among tribal Filipinos too, but I don’t know.)
By the way, the Philippines was colonized from Mexico, not directly from Spain, and was originally under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Mexico.
At the beginning of the Mass the priest blesses the people with the crucifix and then raises it on high. He does the same at the end of Mass.
The Penitential Rite is ‘recommended especially during the Seasons of Lent and Advent. The people kneel’.
Gio compares Fr Chupongco’s influence to that of Archbishop Bugnini. One huge difference is that Bugnini’s Mass, if I may so call it, has become universal. That can hardly be said of the Misa ng Bayang Pilipino in the Philippines. What we have is Bugnini’s Mass. Whether or not Father Chupongco is the ‘king’ Gio says he is, possibly among liturgists but certainly not among the vast majority of Mass-goers.
Vatican II sanctioned the use of the mother-tongue in the liturgy. In the Philippines, especially in the larger cities, English, which is not the mother-tongue of the vast majority of Filipinos, has become the prevailing language at Mass. The document of the Commission of the Liturgy of the Philippines posted by Phil contains this statement: ‘It has given encouragement and assistance for the translation of liturgical books into the vernacular dialects of the Philippines.’
That is not true. They have helped translate the liturgical books into the regional languages, not dialects, of the Philippines. The Misa ng Bayan Pilipino is in one of those, Tagalog.
Ironically, the Spanish missionaries studied and used the regional languages in catechizing. They drew up dictionaries and grammars and helped these languages become literary languages to some degree. The widespread use of English today in the Mass is, I believe, ultimately detrimental to the faith of the people, since it is not the language of the heart. The Old Mass was something that belonged to all of us, not to any particular country.
Carlos, a paper at a theological forum is someone presenting ideas to be critiqued, though he may be hoping that his ideas will be accepted. But I have seen no evidence of the Misa ng Bayan Pilipino being foisted on the people.
What I would like to see in the celebration of Mass in the Philippines is more silence, especially during the Offertory and after Holy Communion, and less singing of hymns that aren’t always appropriate. I would like to see an end to the multiplication of Masses, an end to Masses in shopping malls on Sundays, an end to Masses in funeral homes, an end to Masses on occasions when a simple blessing would be far more appropriate.
Gio is right with regard to the use of Latin in Filipino folk-religion. Where I celebrate weekday Masses in Bacolod City – an hour by boat east of where Gio lives – we sing the Salve Regina after Mass on Saturday and the Regina Coeli during Easter. Whenever Benediction is celebrated people still sing Tantum Ergo.
The observations of Carlos on adoration chapels are, unfortunately, true. There have been instances of the Blessed Sacrament being stolen from such chapels because nobody was there. But in the cathedral in Jaro the adoration chapel has people around the clock and it is truly edifying to see young people going there on their way home from school and people of all ages in silent prayer.
Fra Sean Coyle writes:
“Carlos Palad describes the Misa ng Bayan Pilipino (Mass of the Filipino People) as ‘illicit’. It was published in the Supplement to the Roman Sacramentary for the Dioceses of the Philippines in 1999, ‘Approved for use by the Catholic bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’, though I think it has been around for longer. I have never been present at a celebration of this particular Mass.”
I am afraid that approval by the Catholic Bishops Conference is noit sufficient make this mass licit. It also requires the recognitio of the Holy See. You can chek quite easily wherther it has that recognition: the decree approving it should be published with the approved text. It should also have a protocol number indicating the year in which it was approved. Without these, I am afraid it cannot be used. Just take a look at canon 838 §§ 2 and 3.
Also the prevalance of English in the Philippines surely derives from the American occupation between 1899 and 1948. Spanish was (and in some social circles still is) the primary European language.
“But I have seen no evidence of the Misa ng Bayan Pilipino being foisted on the
people.”
Yes. But there are increasing instances of its celebration on major occasions.
And it has never received the Holy See’s recognitio. The late Msgr. Moises Andrade
once recounted to me a blow by blow account of the failed attempt in 1976 to get it
approved by the Vatican. To this very day Fr. Chupungco still hopes that the CDW
will approve it.
I do agree with you about the extreme multiplication of Masses in the Phils (with
a stipend per Mass!). Something has to be done about that. Many priests offer Mass
with reverence and piety, no denying that, but awareness of the concrete liturgical law
of the Church (not just of its “spirit”) also needs to be promoted.
Lest I be accused of being too negative about my own country, I’d like to say that
the Philippines is a place where Holy Week is really felt. On Palm Sunday the streets bloom with oelaborately woven palms sold at the sidewalks. Maundy Thursday and
Good Friday are national holidays and the churches are full to overflowing with
people attending the liturgies of the Paschal Triduum, adoring the Blessed
Sacrament on Holy Thursday night and doing the Stations of the Cross on Good Friday .
If you wish to experience the desolation of Good Friday and the joy of Easter morning, come here.
The rubrics are frequently violated and there is sometimes too much “creativity” but the white-hot fervor of the faithful more than makes up for it.
Fr Sean Coyle,
Very nice to know someone in this blog who is from the same ecclesiastical province as I am! I’m in the same opinion as you with regards to the use of the term language as opposed to dialect. Are you in any way affiliated with a regional language advocacy group which has a strong presence in Bacolod?
The “mano po” or “amen” as it is also called here in my place is not just a filipino custom but is also practiced in other latin countries of europe. It is very similar to the italian practice called baciamano. even before the advent of inculturation in the agenda of the CBCP, it is already practiced within the church where priests are traditionally given this sign of respect. This can be considered part of folk-catholicism and in my opinion is genuine “inculturation”.
Aside from what you said, I also would like to see an end to the use of the mass as a political tool in protest and rallies.
More on the “mano po”
It is not an indegenous filipino tribal or malay custom. I just recalled that an alternate term for it is “Besa” which is spanish for kiss. It is a latin-european custom introdiced to the Philippines from Spain. So it is really the same as the Italian baciamano. Fr. Coyle mentioned that it is also practiced in East Timor, it is so because it was a Portugese colony.
I wonder how long the clarification on the clarification will take?
I must add my voice to the chorus that has been raised against the Misa ng Bayan Pilipino– if there was ever a liturgical text that has made my skin crawl, this would be it. It is quite depressing that our own priests are casting aside the glorious liturgical traditions we received from Spain in favor of this ghastly fabrication. Here in the Tagalog regions, a lot of the old customs are disappearing. For example, I was told by my elders that it was the custom in olden days to crown a newly-ordained priest with flowers and suspend a pallium over him as he makes his way to his church. The richness of the Holy Week celebrations in the Philippines mostly survive to this day because they have entrenched themselves deeply into the folk piety of many devout Catholics; otherwise, I fear some overzealous priest just might chuck them in the spirit of incultration.
Fr. Coyle is right when he says that the Spanish missionaries, for all the vitriol hurled against them by the anti-clerical Philippine elite and opinion-makers, were far, FAR more benign than how they are usually portrayed. They preached in the languages and dialects of the natives and oversaw the construction and growth of towns and populations. It is remarkable, too, that some of the most beautiful colonial baroque churches here were spearheaded by priests who had little to no training in architecture or construction other than what was taught them by their superiors. As regards Latin, Gio is correct that it has been preserved (ironically!) through the vein of Folk Catholicism. Case in point, I attended Benediction at a not-so-rich parish once, and I was surprised how many old, pious women knew the words to O Salutaris Hostia and the Tantum Ergo. Also, customs such as the chanting of the Pasyon contain a significant selection of Latin phrases, which still shape the minds and hearts of many here.
The one consolation I do have, though, is the celebration of Holy Week here. Carlos is right when he says that the fervor of the people reaches a fever pitch at this time of the year. It’s probably the one time in the whole year when all the traditions and customs the Filipinos received from Spain are in full force, from para-liturgical devotions such as the Depositio, the various processions (especially of the Santo Entierro and the Virgen de Soledad), the penitent brotherhoods, and many others too numerous to mention. Just yesterday, I came back from the province, and the normally 2.5 hour drive was more than doubled because of the numerous people thronging in the streets for the Palm Sunday Mass. With God’s help, I hope that the Philippines will recover the richness and extraordinary beauty of its truly incultrated liturgical practices, and reject this sad excuse at incultration; God knows how far it is from the heart of the people.
As an aside, I’d just like to mention that the destruction of Intramuros was a HUGE blow to Spanish-style Catholicism in the Philippines, most especially in Manila (and by osmosis, the rest of the Tagalog regions too). In 1945, when the Americans returned to the Philippines, the Japanese who had occupied Manila flew into a rage and killed 100,000 civilians as well as torching many churches where they believed the guerillas made base. Old Manila, in particular, was a city of seven churches with an incredibly monastic air, and was probably one of the most ‘religious’ cities in Christendom, if not the whole world.
Among such victims were the Neo-classical San Ignacio, the Jesuit masterpiece decorated with priceless artworks by renowned Filipino sculptors; the church of Santo Domingo, the neo-Gothic church of the Dominicans, and in my opinion, the most beautiful of them all; and of course, San Agustin, the sole survivor of the carnage, which, while incredibly beautiful even today, is naught but a shadow of its former self. A Solemn Pontifical Mass in Intramuros typically lasted up to 4 hours, and was accompanied with polyphony, tunicled servers, long sermons, and even participation from the local government (Up until the 1930s and the early ’40s, some churches in Manila [but not necessarily Intramuros] would hire brass bands to play music at the moment of the Consecration; some places used fireworks, too).
The destruction of the City killed its Spanish character, and consequently, a lot of the Catholic ‘background’ had to be resourced to the American priests and literally rebuilt from scratch. And as the saying goes, what happens in Imperial Manila affects the whole country. The old city certainly had a lot of color and character, and it is sad that something as haunting as the legend of Mass of St. Sylvester (a legendary Mass, which, when witnessed in full, is said to grant life eternal to whosoever does so) is nothing more than a wisp of memory fast fading from the consciousness of the people.
PHILIPPINES
Cardinal accused of disobeying Pope
Robert Mickens
In Rome
THE HEAD of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei commission has reprimanded the Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, for setting “unduly restrictive” conditions on use of the Tridentine Mass, [Again… update on the terms! No one really says “Tridentine” anymore.] saying they were “in direct contradiction” to the wishes of Pope Benedict XVI.
“Your ‘Archdiocesan Guidelines’ are simply not acceptable as they stand and I ask you to reconsider them,” said the Ecclesia Dei president, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, in a letter dated 6 March and seen by The Tablet this week. It said “guidelines allowing only a monthly Mass in a chapel of [the] Metropolitan Cathedral” were in violation of the norms established.”
PHILIPPINES
Cardinal accused of disobeying Pope
In Rome – Robert Mickens
THE HEAD of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei commission has reprimanded the Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, for setting “unduly restrictive” conditions on use of the Tridentine Mass, [Again… update on the terms! No one really says “Tridentine” anymore.] saying they were “in direct contradiction” to the wishes of Pope Benedict XVI.
“Your ‘Archdiocesan Guidelines’ are simply not acceptable as they stand and I ask you to reconsider them,” said the Ecclesia Dei president, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, in a letter dated 6 March and seen by The Tablet this week. It said “guidelines allowing only a monthly Mass in a chapel of [the] Metropolitan Cathedral” were in violation of the norms established in the motu proprio, “Summorum Pontificum”, issued by the Pope in 2007 for the widespread use of the Tridentine Mass. [Get this…] Cardinal Castrillón said the papal decree was “part of the universal law of the Church” and could not be limited by the “particular law” of a diocesan bishop. [This is the part that the Pope’s enemies in this matter will really hate!] The Archdiocese of Manila ministers to more than 2.8 million Catholics.
“There is simply no legitimate reason why this [Tridentine] Mass cannot and should not be celebrated in any church or chapel of your archdiocese,” Cardinal Castrillón said in his letter to the Archbishop of Manila.
[Read closely…] He insisted that Cardinal Rosales actively promote the implementation of the motu proprio by “helping priests who are desirous to learn how to celebrate” the old rite Mass, which he said only required that the priest be “reasonably competent in Latin”, [which, as WDTPRS has been saying all along, means that the priest can pronounce the words properly. We want more, of course, but that is the minimum. And what is required is sufficiency, the minimum, not expertise.] and that there were faithful [no number set… and the coetus mentioned in the Motu Proprio might be very small indeed.] who wished to assist at its celebration. The Archdiocese of Manila published the Tridentine Mass guidelines on its website last year. But they were quickly removed when supporters of the old rite protested to Rome.
(From Robert Soco\’s transcription:) \”to learn how to celebrate” the old rite Mass, which he said only required that the priest be “reasonably competent in Latin”, [which, as WDTPRS has been saying all along, means that the priest can pronounce the words properly. We want more, of course, but that is the minimum. And what is required is sufficiency, the minimum, not expertise.]\”
Not to be dismissive or divisive BUT: (irony on)
IF some of our liturgical \’superiors\’ are demanding fluency and expertise in the Latin language as the standard by which I would be qualified to celebrate the EF (which I am not and never will be):
THEN can I use this same logic for not being able, or willing, to celebrate Mass or the other sacraments in Spanish?
After all, my first and given language is English not Spanish.
While I can read the Misal Romano and the other liturgical books because I\’ve studied Spanish, technically aren\’t I just reading? I don\’t fully understand or comprehend all the words, sentences and nuances of Spanish. (Don\’t now, probably never will).
And I am for all practical intents \’required\’ to PREACH in Spanish as well, after all, it is \’THEIR\’ mass, and this is necessary in order that the congregation be fully, actively and consciously participatory. Even if I am not fully understanding or comprehending what I\’m saying (I NEED someone to help me write a homily that is not only theologically appropriate, but also pastorally instructive and applicable).
Hmmmmm…… (irony off)
“As an aside, I’d just like to mention that the destruction of Intramuros was a HUGE blow to Spanish-style Catholicism in the Philippines, most especially in Manila (and by osmosis, the rest of the Tagalog regions too). In 1945, when the Americans returned to the Philippines, the Japanese who had occupied Manila flew into a rage and killed 100,000 civilians as well as torching many churches where they believed the guerillas made base. Old Manila, in particular, was a city of seven churches with an incredibly monastic air, and was probably one of the most ‘religious’ cities in Christendom, if not the whole world.”
Don’t forget the destruction of the chant books, cantorals and rituales dating back
to the 17th centuries. Manila had, by decree of the First Synod of Manila, used
Mexican and Spanish rituales (and to this very day the ancient Ritual of Toledo is used
in EF communities for marriage rites) and the bombing of Intramuros destroyed what
was left.
True, Carlos. It was an unprecedented disaster– nay, a catastrophe– in so many ways.