QUAERITUR: TLM readings in the vernacular and UE 26

From a reader:

I know this is not the same as an official dubium to the PCED, but your view would be appreciated. (I ask these questions because of the situations at two different parishes in the Archdiocese of ___ which offer the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, but which have some unusual practices with regard to the readings.)

In view of Universae Ecclesiae n. 26 regarding use of the vernacular in the Mass readings, what do you think about:

1. Would it be permissible in a sung Mass (or a low Mass) for the priest to read the epistle in Latin quietly while a layman acting as commentator read it out loud in the vernacular simultaneously? [Reid’s reworking of Fortescue/O’Connell suggested that they could be sung in the vernacular in the Missa Cantata.  UE seems to say no. “26. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.” So, in the Solemn Mass and the Sung Mass, no singing of readings in the vernacular. Simultaneous in the Low Mass?  I don’t think so. UE 26 says “veracula sequente versione”.]
2. Would it be permissible in a solemn Mass for the subdeacon and deacon to sing the epistle and gospel directly in the vernacular, without proclaiming them in Latin? [No.]
3. If the gospel is sung in Latin, then afterwards repeated in the vernacular, should there be the same full liturgical ceremonies (i.e.
“The Lord be with you,” the small signs of the cross, the acolytes holding candles at the lectern where the vernacular reading is done, etc.)? [No.]
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Your well-informed views could really help to clear up questions about how things should be done.

It is human nature, isn’t it.  As soon as people see that there is some leeway or an option, they want to know how far it can be pushed.  Options make sense for special circumstances.  Otherwise, let’s admit it … they are dangerous for liturgical worship.  They rapidly become the norm and drive the real norm into desuetude.   Tricky business, in a time when we have had liturgical nutty pretty much everywhere for decades.

I am not picking on you, dear questioner.  But I can hear some people now.  The gears in their heads are making that whhhhrrrrrr  POP whhhhrrrrr sound as they think stuff up.

“But Father! But Father! Our priest is able to do hand stands.  Would be it possible for the priest, at a Low Mass, to read right side up when in Latin and upside down in the vernacular?  Would it? And how about when he sings?  Also, if at the end of Mass you are not supposed the close the book until the final prayer is completed, should the priest – if he can stand on his hands but just for a little while – stay on his hands even though he wobbles or can he get right side up again before the conclusion is complete?”

I think the best solution is just to do everything in Latin, right side up, and read the readings in English from the ambo …. or not, and get on with it.

Keep it simple.  Sure some variations are permitted, and for good reason.  But while we are in an important time of revival of this treasure, is it wise to tinker?

The Holy Father said that there would be some “mutual enrichment” along the way.  Fine.  Maybe there will be.

But maybe for now we ought to just use the Extraordinary Form as is for a good long time before exploring all sorts of options.  Yes, I think it was the intent of the Council Fathers to have the readings in the vernacular and the rest of the Mass still in Latin. At this point, however, our liturgical worship is pretty screwed up.  We need some time to get used to our Extraordinary Form again.  Fewer variations might be the better way to go.  And Latin is the language of worship in the Latin Church.

I can foresee a situation in which a priest is from some other country than that of the place were he is going to say the TLM, and he doesn’t know the local tongue well enough to read the readings in the vernacular in anything like language.  Then there would be some commentator.  Say I, for example, went to Hong Kong and said Mass for the Chinese congregation whose English may be pretty dodgy.  I don’t have Cantonese at all or Mandarin anywhere near well enough to read or preach.  Have the commentator if it is really necessary to have the readings in the vernacular.   A little common sense helps solve some of these problems.

Also, in many places people have hand missals or sheets they can read.  Is it really necessary to have the readings in the vernacular all the time? It seems to me that by now the cat is out of the bag when it comes to knowing that the Extraordinary Form is in Latin.

Options only sparingly.

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, Universae Ecclesiae | Tagged , , , ,
26 Comments

RAPTURE UPDATE: WDPTRS POLL

Just checking with you all.  I am still here, it seems.

Pick your best answer and, if you picked “Yes”, please indicate in the combox the names of the meds you ought to be taking right now but, in fact, are not.

Concerned the predicted Rapture.

View Results

Via Caritate non ficta.

raptured

Posted in Lighter fare, POLLS |
41 Comments

QUAERITUR: Altar girls dressed as clerics. What to say?

From a reader:

What would be a proper response to a priest who not only allows his female altar servers to wear the black cassock and white surplice, but also tells the parishioners that it is perfectly acceptable to do so?
It doesn’t seem right and I am uncomfortable telling my children that it is o.k when they have questioned it. This priest also feels that Exposition in front of the Blessed Sacrament is of no additional benefit, would not allow a display of Vatican approved Eucharistic Miracles because it encouraged the “superstitious”, and wants nothing to do with our Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration Chapel. Thank you for your help…..

What would be a proper response?

Wow. Ummmm….

How about:

I would prefer there there not be altar girls at all.  But if you are going to do this anyway, the least you could do is not dress them as if they were clerics, which they can never be.  Cassock and surplice are the choir dress of clerics.  Male servers at least have the potential to be clerics, whereas females never do.  Vesting females as if they were clerics sends the wrong signals.

Another response:

I am not going to give you any more of my money until you stop this.

Another response:

It has been nice knowing you.  Perhaps we shall meet again some day. I am moving to Lincoln, Nebraska.

One of the points made at the time of the (very bad) interpretation of CIC 1983 can.230 §2 was that the situation should be explained so that confusion could be avoided.  Avoiding confusion was, at the time and now, important.  Furthermore, the letter from the CDW said, that “the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations .”

Given the age of many servers, I don’t see how dressing the girls in the same manner as the boys does anything to encourage boys to serve.  There ought to be a distinction.

That said, if the pastor opens up to changing the vesture of the girls, then be prepared to cough up money to help it happen.  Church stuff isn’t free.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , , ,
33 Comments

Where you are!

Here is a snapshot from the last few minutes of where some of you are (rough estimations).

The stats change so fast I can just give a few.

Colorado Springs, Color…
Brighton, East Sussex
Helsinki, Southern Finl…
Rome, Lazio
Indiana, Pennsylvania
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Detroit, Michigan
New York
O Fallon, Missouri
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Tarrytown, New York
Arlington, Texas
Stoke-on-Trent
Toronto, Ontario
Bethpage, New York
Burlingame, California
Mountain View, California
Naperville, Illinois
Akron, Ohio
Lewisville, Texas
Pullman, Washington
Newington, Connecticut
West Palm Beach, Florida
Mansfield, Pennsylvania
Chicago, Illinois
Waynesville, North Caro…
Braintree, Massachusetts
Hicksville, New York
Norfolk, Virginia
Syosset, New York
Raleigh, North Carolina
Leuven, Vlaams-Brabant
Edmonton, Alberta
Letterkenny, Donegal
Middlesbrough
Wallingford, Pennsylvania
Grand Junction, Colorado
Los Angeles, California
Dublin
New Baltimore, Michigan
Bolingbrook, Illinois
Philadelphia, Pennsylva…
Astoria, New York
Saint Louis, Missouri
Zagreb, Grad Zagreb
Washington, District of…
San Bernardino, Califor…
San Diego, California
Pearl City, Hawaii
Manchester
Waco, Texas
Sacramento, California
Rome, Lazio
Philadelphia, Pennsylva…
Rogers, Minnesota
Cincinnati, Ohio
Holiday, Florida
Collegeville, Minnesota
Indianola, Pennsylvania
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Dover, Delaware
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Lubbock, Texas
Washington, District of…
Stockton, California
Eggenstein-Leopoldshafe…
Leavenworth, Kansas
Auburn University, Alab…
Reading, Pennsylvania
Basildon, Essex
Columbus, Ohio
Baltimore, Maryland
Chicago, Illinois
Great Falls, Montana
Pottsville, Pennsylvania
Warsaw, Indiana
Las Vegas, Nevada
Perryville, Missouri
Horsham, Pennsylvania
New York
Austin, Texas
Lexington, Kentucky
Chicoutimi, Quebec
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Rochester, New York
Horsham, West Sussex
Raleigh, North Carolina
Sevilla, Andalucia
Cary, Illinois
Anaheim, California
Bedford, Bedfordshire
Cleveland, Ohio
Nashville, Tennessee
Jackson Heights, New York
Berkeley, California
College Station, Texas
Sunbury, Greater London
Salt Lake City, Utah

Posted in Just Too Cool |
16 Comments

Hate-filled editorial by The Tablet: Extraordinary Form, clericalism, and child abuse

From The Bitter Pill (aka The Tablet aka RU486).  Make a decision before you read this to remain cool and composed.  I worked on this a few days ago, but set it aside and then turned my own heat down a notch or two.

It will help a great deal if you keep in mind that the writer of this editorial probably just can’t help it.

My emphases and comments.

Dangers of Clericalism
21 May 2011

To be against clericalism is not the same as being anticlerical.  The latter signifies strong secular resistance to the Catholic Church’s social and political power. Clericalism is about an excessive emphasis on the role of the clergy in the Church’s internal affairs. It implies clerical elitism, the superiority of the priesthood over the laity. [Do you accept this definition?] Anticlericalism, as a concept in Continental European politics, is some way past its sell-by date.  But clericalism is very much still in currency as a key concept in analysing the cultural factors that gave rise to the clerical sex-abuse scandal inside the Catholic Church. [I don’t know what fueled the abuse of children among the Irish clergy, who were a large part of the body of priests who served all over England – and in the USA – but with “clericalism” it has to have been also homosexuality.  But The Tablet wants you to think it is the older form of Mass.] It has almost [almost] become de rigueur for church leaders to say they are against clericalism in this context.

Clericalism was dealt a heavy blow by the emphasis in the teaching of Vatican II on the priesthood of all believers and on common baptism. [What The Pill is not acknowledging is that the priesthood of believers and the priesthood of the ordained are qualitatively different.  Cf. Lumen gentium.  But here come some clichés…] But there is evidence of a clericalist backlash among some of those undergoing training for the priesthood or recently ordained. In dress and attitude, some of them appear to hanker – almost [almost – what is it with this writer and “almost”?] narcissistically – after a restoration of the priest’s elevated status that characterised parish life in the 1950s. [A time when people went to confession, married in the Church, schools and hospitals were being opened…  Who would want those days again?] A softer form of clericalism is still apparent in diocesan structures and in the Vatican itself, where few lay people are to be found, and usually in relatively junior positions. [softer… usually… relatively… but! … its “apparent”!] And clericalism automatically marginalises or excludes women.  [Yes.  Indeed it does.]

[Here is a lesson in weasel-like inuendo:]
It is also sometimes implicit [sometimes implicit?] in the motivation [the writer is psychic too… apparently] of those who are pushing for the return of the Tridentine Rite to general use. [E.g.  The Pope.] While the post-Vatican II new-rite Mass emphasises the Eucharist as an activity shared by the whole community, the Mass named after the Council of Trent [They are a bit behind the times.  Few people say “Tridentine Mass” now.  However, perhaps “Tridentine” was purposely chosen to make it sound archaic?  You decide.] puts more weight on the separation of roles, with the priest active and the congregation passively watching. [The clichés just keep coming.]

The Vatican [read=The Enemy  That pesky Vatican!] is continuing to put ammunition in the hands the pro-Tridentine lobby in the Church, [mixing metaphors a bit there… lobby and ammunition… but read on] as in the latest instruction, Universae Ecclesiae, issued by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Does it [The Vatican] not realise how much this will encourage divisive tensions in the Church and a spirit of reactionary rebellion against local episcopal authority, not to mention the revival of a misogynistic and elitist clericalism[Want to meet an “elitist”?  Find a liberal.  Want to find a true “clericalist”?  Find a liberal.  Want to find a true hater of women?  Find a liberal.  Who is more likely to defy bishops?  Traditionalists or liberals?  Who is more likely to create division?  The Tablet or, say, The Catholic Herald?  Who is more likely to support contraception and abortion, which reduce women to sex objects, and homosexual “lifestyles”, which arguably are at the root of abuse of adolescent males by priests?  The liberal catholic media or traditionally-minded Catholics?]

The reinstatement of the Tridentine Rite was intended to unify the Church and reconcile those alienated from it; [I warned you about this tactic.  The first stated intention in Universae Ecclesiae for the provisions of Summorum Pontificum was to offer “to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure  to be preserved”.  The dissenters of The Pill have focused on the third point.] there is a real danger of it having the opposite effect. If bishops are not alarmed by this, they should be.  [Get that?  The Pill is defending bishops.  I guess the enemy of my Enemy is my friend.  Had the bishops been generous in the application of Ecclesia Dei adflicta, it is probable that Pope Benedict would not have issued Summorum Pontificum. I wonder what The Pill will say about bishops when they begin to acquiesce to the provisions of Summorum PontificumThe Pill is only with the bishops when the bishops are with The Pill’s agenda.]

Meanwhile, the latest instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) regarding the handling of ­clerical abuse allegations moves in the opposite direction. [Watch them turn on the bishops now in favor of, wait for it, The Vatican… a Vatican which does something that The Pill wants.] It recognises that while bishops cannot shirk their responsibilities, they cannot be a law unto themselves in such matters. National episcopal conferences are being required to draw up guidelines and submit them to the Vatican. The importance of cooperation with secular authorities such as the police is emphasised, though curiously the CDF only stresses the duty to report all cases where that is already required by law. It needs to be more general than that: [?] in many countries there is no obligation to report a crime. [I can see some Chinese bishop in communion with Rome calling the Chinese Communist authorities because one of his priests was accused of something.  Shame on The Vatican!  The Vatican should impose global guidelines!  No… wait… that’s what The Vatican did with Universae Ecclesiae.  QUAERITUR: Does The Pill want centralized control or not?  Only when it suits their ideology.] That apart, the instruction moves the Church into the real world, with best practice (as in England and Wales, perhaps) being made the common standard. As a result, the Church will be that much less clerical – and safer[If the CDF got it right with the guidelines about clerical sexual abuse, then maybe the PCED, under the CDF, got it right with Universae Ecclesiae.]

It is the role of The Vatican to offer global guidelines for policies that please The Pill.

So, boys and girls, we have learned today that the old Mass is very very bad because it is clericalist.  But the Novus Ordo is very very good because it isn’t.  Never mind that the Novus Ordo forces a priest towards a manner of celebrating focused on himself in a way unthinkable in the ars celebrandi of the older form of Holy Mass.

The Pill tries to create a moral equivalence between those who want the older form of the Roman Rite and clerical sexual abusers.

The Pill thinks that clericalism produced clerical sexual abuse of children.  The CDF issued something good but not perfect about this obvious scourge.  The Pill suggests that people who want the older forms of worship are narcissists reviving the obvious scourge of clericalism.  Child abusers are, by the way, in the liberal mind, don’t abuse because they are homosexuals.  Abusers abuse because of clericalism.   That’s the connection they are trying to drive you to make.  According to The Pill, The Vatican reined in those dealing with clerical sexual abuse (bishops, bishops conferences).  The Vatican ought to have reined in those who want the older worship, which will surely produce clericalist narcissistic child abusers.

Annoy the writers of The Pill just as you annoyed those at Fishwrap.

UPDATE:
Do you want to know what true clericalism is?
The worst manifestation of clericalism is when priests “clericalize” the laity.  That is nothing less than a signal that the priest doesn’t think lay people have their own dignity as lay people.  In order to “be something” or “participate”, lay people have to do what priests do.  Priests think they they make lay people a little better, because they have made them more like themselves.
Vile.
Posted in Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , , ,
38 Comments

Universae Ecclesiae 28, the Eucharistic Fast, and You.

I had a post about Univerae Ecclesiae 28 and how the derogation in that paragraph makes it clear that the provisions of Summorum Pontificum exclude female service at the altar in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

The reason for this is that in the De defectibus section in the 1962 Missale Romanum there is a clear prohibition of females serving in the absence of a cleric who would serve.  Since there is a conflict between the liturgical law of 1962 and subsequent liturgical law after 1983, the 1962 is to be followed.

However, a reader asks:

On reading De defectibus (in answering the question regarding altar girls), I naturally read more and in section IX, it mentions the Eucharistic fast from Midnight.

While this is addressed in Canon Law and elsewhere, it seems that since it’s also addressed in the rubrics in force in 1962.  As such, does Universae Ecclesiae now require a eucharistic fast from midnight for the Usus Antiquior?

No.

First, be sure you are reading De defectibus from a 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum and not a previous edition.

Pius XII in 1953 in the Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus (which Robert Mickens of The Pill might confuse with the Conciliar decree on the office of Bishops) relaxed the fast under certain circumstances.  The same Pius XII with the Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem of 1957 changed the law to require only a three hour fast, regardless of when Mass was celebrated.

The 1962MR version of De defectibus IX, which concerns defects of the disposition of the body, reflects Pius XII’s 1957 legislation.  The Eucharistic fast of the PRIEST is to be three hours.

Let’s see what the De defectibus really says with my translation.

1. Si sacerdos ante Missan non sit ieiunus per tres saltem horas quoad cibum solidum et potum alcoholicum, et per unam saltem horam quoad potum non alcoholicum, non potest celebrare.  Aquae tamen sumptione ieiunum non frangitur.

[If a priest before Mass is not in a state of fasting through at least three hours in regard to solid food and alcoholic drink, and through at least one hour in regard to non-alcoholic drink, he cannot celebrate.  However, the fast is not broken by the taking of water.]

2. Infirmi, quamvis non decumbant, potum non alcoholicum, et veras ac proprias medicinas, sive liquidas sive solidas, ante Misse celebrtionem sine temporis limite sumere possunt.

[The sick, even though not confined to bed, can take non-alcoholic drink, and true and proper medicines, either liquid or solid, before the celebration of Mass without the limit of time.]

3. Enixe invitantur sacerdotes, qui id praestare valeant, ut venerandam ac vetustam eucharistici ieiunii formam ante Missam servent.

[Priests who are able to perform it  are strongly invited to preserve the venerable and ancient form of the Eucharistic fast before Mass.]

First, this concerns priests, not lay people in the congregation.  It concerns the bodily disposition of the priest who says Mass.  Also, don’t freak out about the references to “alcoholic drink”.  Wine is a staple part of a Roman diet. This is the Roman missal, after all.

Also, the Eucharistic fast is not, per se, a rubric, but sacramental discipline.  It pertains even when Holy Communion is distributed outside of Mass. Think of choir members coming after Mass for Communion.

I think the current discipline on the Eucharistic fast in the 1983 CIC of one hour before Communion for Latin Catholics remains.

UE 27 says:

27 – Quoad regulas disciplinares ad celebrationem formae extraordinariae pertinentes, applicetur disciplina ecclesiastica Codicis Iuris Canonici anno 1983 promulgati.

With regard to the disciplinary norms pertaining to celebration of the Extraordinary Form, the ecclesiastical discipline of the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983 is to be applied.

So, it seems we follow the 1983 Code when it comes to the fast.

Also, other Churches sui iuris have longer periods of Eucharistic fast.  These rules apply to members of other Catholic Churches even if they are attend Mass in a Latin Church.  Conversely, Latin Church Catholics are not bound to observe, for example, the fast according to the, say, Ukrainian Catholic Church.

The Eucharistic fast seems not to be one of those issues referred to in Universae Ecclesiae 28, but it is covered in UE 27.

A final point.  De defectibus deals also with the disposition of the soul of the priest.

When we consider receiving Holy Communion, we who are persons having both soul and body (angels are persons with soul but no body) must be properly disposed in soul and body.

We are properly disposed in soul when we are baptized and in the state of grace (we are not aware of unabsolved mortal sins) and are not under some ecclesiastical censure which prevents us from receiving.  We are disposed in body when we obey the Church’s laws concerning the Eucharistic fast (one of the Precepts or Commandments of the Church).

The Church’s law sets a minimum limit for the Eucharistic fast.

You can do more.

People who are ill or have some other good reason are dispensed to some degree or wholly.

One can argue that the Church ought to require more, but the fact is that we have the set of laws we have.

Don’t look down on people who obey the laws they have been given.

Posted in Classic Posts, Linking Back, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, Universae Ecclesiae | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
28 Comments

The Feeder Feed: Z-Cam update

I am still having some technical problems with the Z-Cam but I have it up and running again.

Here are a couple screen shots taken within just a few minutes.

And Oriole was hanging around on the hummingbird feeder and was just taking off when I spotted him and hit the Print Screen button.

They are some real dogfights going on right now.

For some reason I can’t add webcams I had going before.

It may be a Windows 7 thing.

In any event, I have whole chaplets of the Rosary in Latin cycling through the playlist and a few other audio clips of, perhaps, some interest.

Posted in LIVE STREAMING, The Feeder Feed | Tagged ,
3 Comments

QUAERITUR: What should we do when priests do stupid things?

Priests are people too.  But sometimes I think, “Listen, pal.  If you are too stupid to follow the rites for sacraments as they are written, maybe you should be working as a dishwasher.”

From a reader:

If you post this on your blog, might I suggest “Don’t worry, Father.
There’s a Biological Solution to that,” or perhaps “There’s a good thing there’s a screen between us, buddy.”

I wanted to tell you about debacle in the confessional this past Saturday, and share with you the silver lining I found.

Confession was going fine until the words of Absolution. Father’s articulate speech suddenly turned into rapid mumbling:

“Mumblemumblemumble Jesus is pretty cool mumblemumble And so I forgive you of all your sins…”

“Father, I’m not sure, but I think you said ‘forgive’ instead of ‘absolve…”

“Yes, that’s my translation of the Latin.”

“Bu- Father, would you mind doing it again, for the sake of my scrupulosity, and using the word absolve? Please?” [The was a legitimate request from the penitent.]

“Do you want it in Latin?”

(Overcome with joy at this unexpected prospect) “Actually, yes! That would be fanta-”

(Sharply) “That’s not my style. mumblemumble Jesus is totally awesome mumble and I ABSOLVE you of your sins…”

I managed to bite my tongue (Which is a miracle in itself. Perhaps #2 for Bl. JPII? But I jest), and went outside to perform my penance, and found this prayer at the end of the instructions for making confession in my missal, entitled PRAYER FOR THE CONFESSOR:

Almighty and merciful God, in your great love you have chosen this priest to serve the heavenly mysteries. Make him a worthy minister of the altar, make holy and ratify the words he utters. Through Christ our Lord. Amen

This fantastic little prayer completely changed my mood. I went from being angry and annoyed with this priest, and expecting to feel that way all throughout Mass, to praying for him, and feeling ten thousand times better.

By all means, pray for the priest in that way.

However, if he really is screwing around with the form of the Sacrament of Penance, the words of absolution, and he persists even after having been requested to use the proper form, then the situation should be clarified for the bishop, so that he can find out what is going on.

Okay… now I can remove my “Temple Police” cap.

Seriously, do pray for priests.  They are human beings and subject to the same problems all us fallen souls suffer under, including the darkening of mind and weakening of will due to original sin, constant war with the world, the flesh and the devil, the pressure of cultural trends… all of it.  And the Enemy really hates priests.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , , ,
Comments Off on QUAERITUR: What should we do when priests do stupid things?

Universae Ecclesiae 28 and “altar girls” for the Extraordinary Form

The Instruction on Summorum Pontificum called Universae Ecclesiae makes it clear that there is to be no service at the altar by females for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

UE 28 reads.

28 – Praeterea, cum sane de lege speciali agitur, quoad materiam propriam, Litterae Apostolicae Summorum Pontificum derogant omnibus legibus liturgicis, sacrorum rituum propriis, exinde ab anno 1962 promulgatis, et cum rubricis librorum liturgicorum anni 1962 non congruentibus.

Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

Derogate means that things are partially replaced, set aside.  Insofar as the use of the 1962 books is concerned, if there is something that came into law after 1962, and if that thing or practice conflicts with what is in the 1962 books, then those post-1962 conflicting things don’t apply to the use of the 1962 books.  In other words, if there is a conflict, they are excluded.

Despite this, some people are saying that UE 28 does not make it clear that females can’t serve in the Extraordinary Form.  That’s absurd, but that’s what some are claiming.  I suppose they think that if UE 28 doesn’t explicitly mention females, then UE 28 doesn’t forbid them.

Furthermore, those who think that UE 28 still means that Summorum Pontificum permits female service in the Extraordinary Form will ask, “Where in the Missale Romanum does it say that only males can serve?

Under another entry, commentator “GregorD” offered a very helpful piece of information.  WDTPRS KUDOS to him.

In the front of the 1962 Missale Romanum there is a section called De defectibus, “Concerning defects”.  This section talks about problems or, to put it another way, liturgical abuses, which could make Mass illicit or invalid.  For example, if there is a defect in the matter, the bread or wine, Mass could be invalid.  This is important stuff to know.

In Section X – De defectibus in Ministerio ipso occurrentibus… Concerning defects occurring in the Ministry itself.  Here we find this:

Possunt etiam defectus occurrere in ministerio ipso, si aliquid ex requisitis ad illud desit: … si non adsit Clericus, vel alius deserviens in Missa, vel adsit qui deservire non debet, ut mulier; …

Defects can also occur in the ministry itself, if any of the requisites for it be lacking: that, … if a Cleric [Clericus] be not present, or another [alius] serving at Mass, or there be present one who ought not to serve, as a woman [mulier]“;…

Nothing ambiguous about this, but let’s review:

  • UE 28 says Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.
  • In the 1962 Missale Romanum itself we find that females are not to serve.
  • Service by females was permitted by law after 1962, after 1983, as a matter of fact (cf. CIC 1983 can. 230 §2).
  • There is a conflict between the 1962MR and the CIC 1983 can. 230 §2.
  • UE 28 makes it clear that, according to Summorum Pontificum, there are to be no female servers in the Extraordinary Form.

No altar girls in the Extraordinary Form, the TLM, the Usus Antiquior, the old Mass, the Tridentine Mass.  Call it what you will.  No female servers.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Fr. Z KUDOS, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, Universae Ecclesiae | Tagged , , , , ,
54 Comments

QUAERITUR: A convert hungry to learn more

Catechism of the Catholic ChurchFrom a reader:

Now that I have been a Catholic for one year, I am finding that I am still thirsting for info on Catholic doctrine. I read all I can but at almost 60 I am finding it overwhelming. I am raising an 8 year old grandson who was baptized at the same Easter Vigil as my confirmation last year. The Parish that I am going to at the moment is very large, and the smaller ones have no kneelers and seem foreign to me. Please recommend somethings I can do to get a better understanding of my new faith.

Faith seeks understanding.

We always seek to know more about the things or people we love.

Fr. John Hardon, SJYou might try, for yourself, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or its Compendium.  Also the Catholic Catechism by the late, great Fr. John Hardon is good for adults.  To help with the instruction of your grandchild, to give you ways of putting things in way he can understand, you could look at editions of the Baltimore Catechism, even perhaps finding a way to make a game of memorization (good for you too).  There are different editions of the Baltimore Catechism.  You can find the one that is age appropriate for an 8 year old.  Perhaps a reader here can chime in on which one that would be.  There is also My Catholic Faith, a wonderful book.

BTW… I my own conversion process I used Fr. Hardon’s book.  Very useful.

If there are any readers who were, shall we say, already “seasoned” when they came into the Catholic Church, perhaps they especially could offer some observations.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , ,
41 Comments