29 July Fourth Fota International Liturgy Conference – 2nd Session

I received this Press Release from the St. Colman’s Society for Catholic Liturgy

Fourth Fota International Liturgy Conference
Benedict XVI and the Roman Missal
Second Session
Cork, Ireland
29 July 2011

St Colman’s Society for Catholic Liturgy is pleased to announce that the second session of the Fourth Fota International Liturgy Conference will be held at the Imperial Hotel, Cork City, Ireland on 29 July 2011.
The second session will consist of a presentation of the new English language translation of the Roman Missal.
Prof. D. Vincent Twomey, SVD will chair the seminar.
George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney and President of the Vox Clara Committee will moderate the session and deliver the key-note address.
Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, New Jersey, and Chariman of the Liturgical Commission of the United States Catholic Bishops’ Conference will also address the session.
Mons. James Moroney, executive secretary of the Vox Clara Committee and a member of the faculty of Saint John’s Seminary in Boston, will provide an extensive introduction to the details of the new English translation.
Monsignor Moroney is also adjunct faculty to the Liturgical Institute in Chicago and the International Consultation on Theological Education in Rome.
Further information may be obtained from the Society’s Secretary at 00353 21 4813445 of at Colman.liturgy@yahoo.co.uk .
Registration for the second session of the Fourth Fota International Liturgy Conference may be made at Colman.liturgy@yahoo.co.uk.

Contact:  The Secretary
Email:  Colman.liturgy@yahoo.co.uk
Tel: 00353 214 813445

Posted in The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged , , ,
Comments Off on 29 July Fourth Fota International Liturgy Conference – 2nd Session

Australia: Some priests claim they will refuse to use the new English translation of Mass

The fruits of the “Spirit of Vatican II” are detaching from the vine.

There was an article the Australian site The Age, I believe of Melbourne, about some priests who claim they will refuse to use the new, corrected translation of Mass.

Church’s revamp of Mass sparks rebellion by priests
Barney Zwartz And Leesha McKenny
February 19, 2011

THE Catholic Church faces open defiance over the introduction of its new Mass translation this year, with a dozen priests indicating they will refuse to use it and hundreds of others ”steaming” over a lack of consultation. [I wonder why Fr. Joe Bagofdoughnuts from Tall Tree Circle thinks he should have a say in this matter.]

The Mass has become the latest battleground in the culture wars between progressive Catholics and traditionalists suspicious of the reforms of the 1960s Vatican Council, [Doesn’t this introduce an irrelevant factor? Isn’t this about the translation of the Novus Ordo?] of which probably the most important was changing the Mass from Latin to the local language of worshippers. [Let’s not get started on the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium said that Latin was to be retained.]

The new translation is a more literal version of the 400-year-old Latin text, [400?] which changes what the faithful say and has been heavily influenced by a Vatican advisory committee headed by Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney.

Supporters say the new text is more elevated and reverent, while critics say it is artificial, uninclusive and stilted[What is missing from this?  They don’t touch on the issue of accuracy.  The new translation is more accurateAccuracy is not the same as “more literal” that they mentioned above.]

It will be introduced gradually in Australia between June and November and will be compulsory at every Mass in English.

National Council of Priests chairman Ian McGinnity said hundreds of his 1600 members were ”steamed up” at the Vatican’s lack of consultation, [First, I doubt very much that all 1600 members were angry.  Second, they must be terrible impressed with themselves if they think they should have been consulted.] and were concerned that the unidiomatic language would alienate Mass-goers, most of whom had used only the present form all their lives. [Ah yes, the Lefebvrism of the left once again.]

He said most priests would not decide how to respond until they saw the changes, [The smart ones want to see the text.] but at least a dozen had told him, ‘I’m not changing.” [What do you want to bet most of them are at least 60 years old?]

When the church changed from Latin to English it accommodated those who dissented, [How many things, dear readers, are wrong with that statement.] and priests should be given time to adapt. [For pity’s sake.  We have been dealing with the for years.  There has been and there still is time to “adapt”.]

Asked what sanctions a local bishop could apply, Father McGinnity said: ”I really don’t know. I suppose he could suspend a bloke. But given the [priest] shortage, it’s unlikely.” [Perhaps bishops should suspend priests who refuse to use the new translation!]

Sydney priest John Crothers said he could not in good conscience use changes he believed were against the Vatican Council. [That battered old chestnut.]

He said he had told Cardinal Pell this at a clergy conference last year. ”I said at the conference, ‘I won’t be doing it, and where do I stand there?[Sounds a bit like Luther.] And he’s just said that he expected all the priests will do it,” Father Crothers said.

In Ireland this month, 400 priests publicly denounced the new Mass as ”archaic, elitist and obscure” and urged their bishops to delay changes to the Mass for five years until the clergy and laity were consulted. [Consulted?  To what end?  Makes you wonder about the old “Interdict” option, no?  The only problem is they probably wouldn’t care.]

Melbourne Archbishop Dennis Hart, vice-chairman of the international translation committee, said consultation had been extensive, but there would have to be ”dialogue and encouragement” for opponents. ”I think a lot of the criticism is really a fear of what we think the thing is, and when we get to the reality it’s not like that at all,” he said.

If they don’t like the new translation, there’s always Latin.

I can understand priests who get their back up about changes.  At a certain age, priests tend not to like change.

I don’t have a huge problem with open criticism of the new translation.  Make your arguments!  Bring out your texts and your reasons!  Have at!

But it is simply wrong to defy the proper authority of the Church and of the local bishops to whom they publicly promised obedience.

It is wrong to refuse to use the new translation.

What these men are doing is more damaging to their flocks and to themselves than implementing a translation allegedly so flawed that it should not be used.

Communicating concerns in private is one thing.  Go ahead!  Write letters!  Have meetings behind closed doors!  Beat your fists on the floor!  Froth!

Going to the main stream media to express open defiance for ecclesial authority … another thing altogether.

Their grandstanding about defying authority does harm to the people of God.  I fear they are also endangering their own souls.  They are eroding the respect of Catholic people for ecclesial authority and placing themselves at the center of attention.

I hope that when The Day finally comes around for the new text to be used, these men will choose obedience.  After all the stink they are raising now, a choice to submit to proper authority would help to repair the damage.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, The future and our choices, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , ,
65 Comments

QUAERITUR: What do I say in the Eucharistic Prayer when there is no bishop?

From a priest reader:

In the very near future my bishop’s resignation will be accepted by the Holy Father. I was wondering what the correct thing to do will be when praying for the bishop in the Eucharistic Prayer.

I have seen various things done in other dioceses when they are without a bishop: praying for the recently retired bishop, praying for the retired bishop from two bishops ago when the most recent bishop was moved to another diocese. Something about those don’t seem right.

It makes sense to me simply to omit the bishop part when there is no bishop. Is there any official protocol? Any other thoughts?

I suspect that when that day comes around, the chancery will send out to all the priests some sort of directive about what to say during Mass.

In the meantime, this is my understanding.  I am happy to receive correction in this.

Leaving aside what bishops say about themselves during the Eucharistic Prayer, here is my understanding of what priests say.

We are obliged to mention the local, diocesan bishop by name when there is one.  If there is a coadjutor or auxiliaries, we can mention them by name or in a generic way (e.g., “his coadjutor/helper bishops/auxiliaries”), but we are not obliged to.  It is up to us.  If there is some other bishop who isn’t of the diocese present, it is not foreseen that his name be mentioned.  However, I think you have to mention the name of a bishop who is the “apostolic administrator”, because he is effectively the local bishop.  You don’t mention a resident bishop “emeritus”.

When the diocese has no resident ordinary bishop, you leave that cause out.  The same applies with there is no Pope.  You leave that clause out.  If there is no Pope and no local bishop, you leave both clauses out.  I do not believe you mention the name of a “diocesan administrator” in place of the local ordinary bishop.

When you visit Rome, by the way, since the Pope is the local bishop, you mention the Pope’s name and then exclude the other clause.  When the See of Peter is empty, you omit the whole thing.

These rules would apply to the Extraordinary as well as the Ordinary Form.

For myself, I mention the name of the Pope and only the local ordinary bishop without any other additions.   That’s what the black and red indicate.  However, after every Mass, either in private, or quietly to myself in public, I say a Memorare for a list of bishops with whom I have had some contact or who have particularly difficult mandates.  The devil hates bishops with unrelenting malice. Bishops need our special attention in prayers.

And about that “Any other thoughts?”… Why yes!

[CUE MUSIC]

Mystic Monk CoffeeWhen you’ve had a hard day of it, when things have been challenging or perhaps people are on your case, when you’ve been beset by financial cares and worried about the souls of those under your protection, try to imagine the burdens a bishop carries and then console yourself with a big WDTPRS mug of piping hot Mystic Monk Coffee!

New Translation MugThe Enemy of the soul and all the forces of hell are fallen angels.  That means that they are untiring, unrestrained by space and matter, and possessed of an intellect vastly beyond our own.  Even while they are constrained in some respects by God and warded off by our angel guardians, they are nevertheless capable of confusing us, stimulating our baser parts and appetites, troubling our memories, and doing the same to all those around us.  In their pride and pain they desire to us to be separated from God in agony for eternity just as they are.

They hate priests and they hate bishops even more than they hate priests.  To bring down a bishop is a great blow.

That’s why you should refresh your supply of Mystic Monk Coffee!

Mystic Monk Coffee, roasted by traditional Carmelites in Wyoming, will keep you bright and focused so that you can pray for bishops and priests!

What’s bad about that?

Mystic Monk CoffeeThe Monks 4 Favorites might be a place to start if you haven’t had their coffee before.  Four packs and free shipping.

“But Father! But Father!”, I can hear some of you saying. “It is really okay to drink coffee while praying?”

Not to worry.  It is okay to pray while drinking coffee!  See?

Bishops everywhere will appreciate your prayers, whether you are drinking coffee or not.

Mystic Monk Coffee!

It’s swell!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Mail from priests | Tagged
30 Comments

WDTPRS: Septuagesima

SeptuagesimaFor the Collect in Sunday’s Ordinary Form, 7th Sunday of Ordinary Time, here.

The prayers and readings for the Masses of these pre-Lenten Sundays were compiled by St. Gregory the Great (+604), Pope in a time of great turmoil and suffering.  Pre-Lent is particularly a time for preaching about missions and missionary work, the evangelization of peoples.  In the Novus Ordo of Paul VI there is no more pre-Lent.  A terrible loss.  We are grateful that with Summorum Pontificum the pre-Lent Sundays have regained something of their ancient status.

NB: The antiphons for the first part of Mass carry a theme of affliction, war, oppression.  We hear from 1 Corinthians on how Christians must strive on to the end of the race.  The Tract (which substitutes the Gradual and Alleluia) is the De profundis.

COLLECT:
Preces populi tui,
quaesumus, Domine, clementer exaudi:
ut, qui iuste pro peccatis nostris affligimur,
pro tui nominis gloria misericorditer liberemur.

This prayer, as well as the other two we will see, is in versions of ancient sacramentaries, such as the Gregorian. Our wonderful Lewis & Short Dictionary says ex-audio means “listen to” in the sense of “harken, perceive clearly.” There is a greater urgency to exaudi (an imperative, or command form) than in the simple audi. Clementer is an adverb from clemens, meaning among other things “Mild in respect to the faults and failures of others, i.e. forbearing, indulgent, compassionate, merciful.” We are asking God the omnipotent Creator to listen to us little finite sinful creatures in a manner that is not only attentive but also patient and indulgent.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
We beseech You, O Lord, graciously to hark
to the prayers of Your people:
so that we who are justly afflicted for our sins,
may mercifully be freed for the glory of Your Name.

The first thing long time readers of this column will note, as well as you who attend mainly the Novus Ordo, is the profoundly different tone of this prayer.  It is just as succinct as most ancient Roman prayers.  It has the classic structure.  But the focus on our responsibility and guilt for our sins is very alien to the style of the Novus Ordo.  For the most part, such direct references to our sinful state were systematically excised from the ancient prayers which survived in some form on the post-Conciliar Missale Romanum.

SECRET:
Muneribus nostris, quaesumus, Domine,
precibusque susceptis:
et caelestibus nos munda mysteriis,
et clementer exaudi.

This ancient prayer was also in the Mass “Puer natus” for 1 January for the Octave of Christmas.  The first part of the prayer is an ablative absolute. In the second part there is a standard et…et construction.  The prayer is terse and elegant.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Our gifts and prayers having been received,
we beseech You, O Lord:
both cleanse us by these heavenly mysteries,
and mercifully hark to us.

In the first prayer we acknowledge our sinfulness and beg God’s mercy.  In this prayer we show humble confidence that God is attending to our actions and we focus on the means by which we will be cleansed from the filth of our sins, namely, the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, about to be renewed upon the altar.

As the Mass develops there is a shift in tone after the Gospel parable about the man hiring day-laborers.  An attitude of praise is introduced into the cries to God for help.

POSTCOMMUNIO (1962MR):
Fideles tui, Deus, per tua dona firmentur:
ut éadem et percipiendo requirant,
et quaerendo sine fine percipiant.

Glorious.

In an ancient variation we find per[pe]tua, turning “by means of your…” into “perpetual”. That éadem (neuter plural to go with dona, “gifts”) is the object of both of the subjunctive verbs which live in another et…et construction.  Requiro means “to seek or search for; to seek to know, … with the accessory idea of need, to ask for something needed; to need, want, lack, miss, be in want of, require (synonym: desidero)”.  Think of how it is used in Ps. 26(27),4: “One thing I have asked of the Lord, this will I seek after (unum petivi a Domino hoc requiram); that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life.”  Quaero is another verb for “to seek”, as well as “to think over, meditate, aim at, plan a thing.”  The first meaning of the verb percipio is “to take wholly, to seize entirely” and then by extension “to perceive, feel and “to learn, know, conceive, comprehend, understand.”

Notice that these verbs all have a dimension of the search of the soul for something that must be grasped in the sense of being comprehended.

The New Roman Missal – 1945:
May Thy faithful, O God, be strengthened by Thy gifts,
that receiving them they may still desire them
and desiring them may constantly receive them.

The New Marian Missal – 1958:
May Thy faithful people, O God, be strengthened by Thy gifts;
that in receiving them, the may seek after them the more,
and in seeking them, they may receive them for ever.

Saint Andrew Bible Missal – 1962:
O Lord, may your faithful people be made strong by your gifts.
By receiving them may they desire them.
And by desiring them, may they always receive them.

Just to show you that we can steer this in another direction, let’s take those “seeking/graping/perceiving” verbs and emphasize the possible dimension of the eternal fascinating that the Beatific Vision will eventually produce.

A LITERAL ALTERNATIVE:
May Your faithful, O God, be strengthened by Your gifts:
so that in grasping them they will need to seek after them
and in the seeking they will know them without end.

In this life, the closest thing we have to the eternal contemplation of God is the moment of making a good Holy Communion.  At this moment of Mass, which so much concerned struggling in time of oppression, we strive to grasp our lot here in terms of our fallen nature, God’s plan, and our eternal reward.

I don’t believe this prayer, like Septuagesima Sunday, made it into the Novus Ordo, to our great impoverishment.

Posted in WDTPRS | Tagged
8 Comments

News from an Italian source about the Instruction on Summorum Pontificum

There is a good deal of hand-wringing going on right now about the possibility that the upcoming “Instruction” about Summorum Pontificum will water-down the provisions which the Supreme Pontiff made the law of the Latin Church.

About this Instruction, I gave an initial comment here.

Such an Instruction has been expected, like Godot, for a long time.  I long ago stopped hoping for it.  I actively stopped hoping for it, as a matter of fact.

But it is coming and many people, in anticipation of its arrival, are chewing their own skulls in anxiety.

I can understand why people would be upset at the reports about the Instruction.  So many who mourned the loss of the older forms of worship have been mistreated by the Church’s shepherds.  Many who knew the older forms back when, and younger people who prefer them now, are still being treated like second-class trash who get to sit in the back of the bus.  And there only grudgingly.   You can understand why they would be anxious about this Instruction, given how many positions of power are still in the hands of enemies of the Holy Father’s vision and provisions.

Now we see this.

Paolo Rodari writes on Palazzo Apostolico with my emphases and comments in my rapid translation.

They are writing here, here and here that in the Vatican they are trying to water-down the implementing decree [“Instruction”] of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

In substance, according to the blogs mentioned above, the decree instead of giving a greater impetus to the Motu Proprio, explaining to bishops how to implement it in a better way, would say that the old liturgy is a concession made only to “traditionalists”, in recognition of their particular ‘sensibility”.  The blogs still write that the fabricators of this watering-down are Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the Maltese promoter of justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Antonio Card. Canizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

I personally made the necessary verifications and I can say that, according to sources inside the Vatican, the news items given here above, “are completely without foundation”The implementing decree will not water-down anything and neither Scicluna nor Canizares are working in that sense.

The Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, which today is presided over by the Prefect for Doctrine of the Faith William Joseph Card. Levada, already has the text of the decree ready, [I have the sense that someone has told the writer something along the lines of “Get this out there so that the trouble-makers will stop making a fuss!”] is waiting for the difficult work of the translations to finish, and counts on publishing it all (if the translations aren’t subject to delays) before Easter.

Take that for what it is worth.  Rodari doesn’t offer anything that can be verified either.

We don’t know what the text will say.  Most of the people who are talking about the text to me in private – most, not all – don’t know what is in the text.

Given that we don’t know many of the actual details of the text, I can only recommend that people who are deeply concern get on their knees and pray that Pope Benedict be strengthened in his mandate as Vicar of Christ and that his enemies – far from him and close to him – be weakened and confounded.

Do what a committed Catholic warrior would do for a cause that is dear.

I have started a month long “novena”, a Spiritual Bouquet for Pope Benedict to end on 19 March, which is the Holy Father’s “name day”, the Feast of St. Joseph.

Please participate in this Spiritual Bouquet.

In the meantime, drink some Mystic Monk coffee and, if you want to sign something, go to this site and put your signature to a kind of open-letter or petition.

Also, in the next days and weeks consider that the Holy Father is unlikely to put his signature to something which would so undermine his position and authority.

Finally, I will ask the readers for some help with something.

We could use an up-to-date list of the members (not the workers) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the members (not workers) of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.  We need to know who has been involved in this and who may also need prayers.  It would be nice to get this before the 2011 Annuario Pontificio is released.   Please don’t waste our time with “This guy used to be the list” or “I think he is a member” or even worse “I think X should be on it!”  We need facts, not old news or guesses.  If you don’t know, don’t write about it.

And now…

From the the Enchiridion of Indulgences, #25:

A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who, in a spirit of filial devotion, devoutly recite any duly approved prayer for the Supreme Pontiff (e.g., the Oremus pro Pontifice):

V. Let us pray for our Pontiff, Pope Benedict.

R. May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and bless him upon earth, and deliver him not to the will of his enemies.

Our Father.  Hail Mary.

Let us pray.

O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Benedict, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church. Grant him, we beseech Thee, that by his word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, may he attain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged
19 Comments

QUAERITUR: priest changing the lame-duck translation or starting early with the new


From a priest reader:

The new translation is coming up in Advent.  I can hardly wait!  Now we are stuck using the old “lame-duck” translations, as you call it.  I’d use a different phrase.

Honestly, I hate the present translation so much, I have actually sometimes made my own and used them.  How bad is that?

Having looked at these translations so long, and seeing the flaws in them, what do, would you do?  Do you change the words?

Remember what I tell those who are criticizing the new, corrected translation.  If you don’t like it, just use Latin.

VOTE FOR WDTPRSNot practical?   Right.

You aren’t the first person who has asked me this lately.

The lame-duck ICEL version is revolting, I know.  Think about this Sunday’s upcoming Collect.

Look, friend.   You can “hardly wait”, but you have to.  You tell couples you are preparing for marriage to “wait”, right?

Until we have the new translation, just use the old, lame-duck version in the book as the book is printed.  Say what the black words say and do what the red words say to do. We are obliged to do that.  It is distasteful in one sense, but proper in the other.  It’s right to wait.  It is also about fidelity to one’s state in life.  Just as the couple not yet in the married state, we have to wait.

What do I do?  Well… I suppose … well… a word here or there… I admit it.   But, no… I don’t make any extensive changes even though I think I have worked up my own translations for every Sunday and feast that can fall on a Sunday and a lot more besides.  That’s not my call.  My translations were intended as a crowbar to pry the Latin originals open and see the treasures within, not as replacements for the (dreadful) official texts.  As a priest you use the book that is on the altar, old Mass, new Mass, whatever, tempting though it is to adjust it.

Of course there is less temptation to change the prayers in the older books.   But.. now that I think of it, that is precisely what the snippers and pasters of Consilium did when gluing together the Novus Ordo.  They often corrected the Latin prayers.   For example, in the Collect for next Sunday’s Mass with the 2002MR the Consilium experts changed a single letter, which, though it didn’t change the sense too much, nevertheless changed the sense.

Look at this.

COLLECT (2002MR):
Da nobis, quaesumus, Domine,
ut et mundi cursus pacifico nobis tuo ordine dirigatur,
et Ecclesia tua tranquilla devotione laetetur
.

This prayer was in a 7th century manuscript, the so-called Veronese Sacramentary, though it is surely much older.  It was prayed on the 4th Sunday after Pentecost where it remained for centuries in the Missale Romanum until it was moved in the 1960’s to the 8th Sunday of Ordinary Time.  In the pre-Conciliar Missale Romanum we find the adverb pacifice.  The Novus Ordo redactors changed this back to the more ancient pacifico which goes with ordine.  One letter.  As the fabled Fr. Foster is wont to say, “It’s always one letter, friend.”

There is always the temptation to tinker, you see.  Some have the authority to tinker, and they do.  Whether or not they should is another matter.  Garden variety priests such as we are don’t have the authority to tinker.  We are also explicitly told not to by Holy Mother Church. We don’t have authority on our own to do that.

So don’t.

It won’t be much longer. We have endured this long.

I admit that when I say the Novus Ordo in English, which I do whenever asked, I have to shut down some of my higher brain functions.  I lower my eyes and  think of Summorum Pontificum. I say Mass in as reverent as way as I can.  I don’t try to force the dreadful translation, with its unrelenting banality and boring parataxis, its soporific condescension and its sometimes Pelagian flavor, into even greater ugliness by trying to “read with meaning”.  I say the prayers in a measured way and get on with it with never a grimace.  It is Holy Mass and deserves that.  Christ is the Actor in Mass.  Say the black and do the red and Christ’s words and actions are made manifest.  The new translation – not to mention a far better ars celebrandi learned in tandem from the older form of Mass – will allow what Christ desires us to hear in the words Holy Church gives us far more clearly.

It will be interesting to have an experience of the Novus Ordo in English… that is, in the new, corrected translation.  It isn’t perfect, but it is by far better than what we have been using for the last few decades.  I think I will be able to live with it.

I am ranting.  I’ll stop.

Father, just say the words as they are in the book.  I think it is wrong to change them.  How wrong?  Like I said, a word here.. a word there… maaaaaybe.   Even “and” and “the” are important, as Mary McCarthy pointed out.  But don’t go changing things wholesale.   That’s above our pay grade.

In the meantime you can explain to people what the “prayer really says” during the sermon.

Every oration, properly translated, has treasures within.  If you can’t endure the text in the book as it is, put your energy into making a sermon about that prayer that exposes the real content in such a way that your congregation will come to hang on every word of Mass, listening for what it all means.

“But Father! But Father!”, I can hear some people saying in frustration.  “Some of us don’t know Latin.  It’s not fair for you to leave that Latin there and not tell us what it says!  What does that prayer really say?”

Okay.

AWKWARD SLAVISHLY LITERAL WDTPRS RENDERING:
Grant us, we beg, O Lord,
both that the course of the world be set by your peace producing plan for us
and that your Church may be made joyful by means of tranquil devotion
.

LAME-DUCK ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord,
guide the course of world events
and give your Church the joy and peace
of serving you in freedom
.

CORRECTED ICEL TRANSLATION:
Grant us, O Lord, we pray,
that the course of our world
may be directed by your peaceful rule
and that your Church may rejoice,
untroubled in her devotion
.

You decide.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Mail from priests, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , ,
20 Comments

REVIEW: Baptism booklet (Angelus Press, 2006)

A while back I fielded a question about the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism in the traditional form, using the older Rituale Romanum.  In that discussion the issue of booklets for the use of bystanders came up.

The nice people at Angelus Press sent me a copy of their booklet for baptism in the traditional form.

One booklet costs $3.95 and packs of 10 cost $26.00.

This booklet contains more than the baptismal rites.  It also has

  • On Holy Baptism by Fr. Franz Schmidberger
  • Church Teaching About Baptism
  • The Ceremonies of Baptism
  • The Serious Obligations of Godparents
  • The Churching of Women
  • Blessing of a Woman after Childbirth and of Her Child
  • Consecration of a Child to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
  • The Rite for the Baptism of Adults, The Reception of Converts

The booklet does not have an imprimatur.

There is a place to write in names, dates, information, for when this book serves also as a memento of the rite.

There is English and Latin for everything, facing.

There is a useful section on godparents, or “sponsors” as they are sometimes called today.

Since not all who come into the Church are unbaptized, there is a section for the reception of converts.

It was interesting to read this.  This was the form I used, lo those many years ago.

It is a useful book.   I would prefer an imprimatur, of course.  And I am not entirely enthusiastic about giving people treatises on baptism by priests who are not in manifest unity with the Roman Pontiff.  However, if you are going to have traditional baptisms in your parish, Reverend Fathers – which you can under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum – you may find this book useful in many ways.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, REVIEWS | Tagged , ,
8 Comments

Can I has gazelle?

Just for a chuckle.

Posted in Lighter fare |
Comments Off on Can I has gazelle?

SSPX Bp. Fellay about Summorum Pontificum

VOTE FOR WDTPRSBenedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.

SSPX Bp. Bernard Fellay has issued some interesting observations in the form of Q&A.

Here are his observations about Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.  They are on the site of the SSPX in the USA.

My emphases (except for the questions) and comments.

The Motu Proprio Effect: Part 2

14. Your Excellency, do you think that the Motu Proprio, despite its deficiencies, is a step toward restoring Tradition?

It is a step of capital importance. You could even call it an essential step, even though so far it has had practically no effect, or very little, because there is massive opposition by the bishops. At the juridical level, the Motu Proprio has recognized that the old law, the one pertaining to the traditional Mass, had never been abrogated: this is a step of capital importance in restoring Tradition to its place. [So, if it should be weakened in some way, that weakening would have serious repercussions for the SSPX.  That would send bad a signal.  It is hard to imagine that, of all things, Benedict would allow that to happen.]

15. Practically speaking, have you seen across the world any important changes on the part of the bishops concerning the traditional Mass since the Motu Proprio?

No. A few here and there who obey the Pope, but they are rare.

16. How about the priests?

Yes, I see a lot of interest on their part, but many of them are persecuted. It takes extraordinary courage simply to dare to apply the Motu Proprio as it was worded; and of course, yes, there are more and more priests, [every day more] especially in the younger generations, who are interested in the traditional Mass. It is very encouraging!

17. Are there communities that have decided to adopt the old liturgy?

There may be several, but there is one that we know about, in Italy, the community of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, which has decided to return to the old liturgy; in the women’s branch it has already been done. For the priests who are involved in ministry in the dioceses, it is not so easy. [It is quite hard.  Greater numbers of priests would help in this regard.  Pray for vocations.]

18. What advice do you give to Catholics who, since and thanks to the Motu Proprio, now have a traditional Mass closer to them than a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X?

My advice to them is to ask the priests of the Society for advice first, not to go with their eyes closed to just any traditional Mass that is celebrated nearby. The Mass is a treasure; but there is also a way of saying it, and everything that goes with it: the sermon, the catechesis, the way of administering the sacraments… Not every traditional Mass is necessarily accompanied by the conditions required for it to bear all its fruits and to protect the soul from the dangers of the current crisis. Therefore ask the priests of the Society for advice first.  [Of course there are great benefits of actually being in unity with Peter, manifestly, and with the bishop.  There are benefits to going to priests who have faculties.  I think he says this partly because he knows that more people want to be in unity with the Pope and with the local bishop.]

19. The liturgy is not the basis of the crisis in the Church. Do you think that the return of the (traditional) Liturgy is always the start of a return to the integrity of the Faith?

The traditional Mass has an absolutely extraordinary power of grace. You see it in the apostolic work, you see it especially in the priests who come back to it: it is truly the antidote to the crisis. It is really very powerful, at all levels. At the level of grace, at the level of faith…. I think that if the old Mass were allowed to be truly free, the Church could emerge rather quickly from this crisis, but it would still take several years! [This is overly sanguine, but it is pretty much on target.  A revitalization of the Church’s worship is indispensable.  It is the tip of the speak.  It is the vital component to any rebuilding.  It is the sine qua non.  The older form of Mass must help us to continuity with our Catholic way of worship and therefore our Catholic identity.]

20. For a long time the Pope has been speaking about “the reform of the reform”. Do you think that he hopes to try to reconcile the old liturgy with the teaching of Vatican II in a reform that would be a middle term? [I think the questioner is driving at a kind of “tertium quid“.]

Listen, at the moment we know nothing about it! We know that he wants this reform, but where that reform is headed? Will everything eventually be blended together, “the ordinary form” and “the extraordinary form”?  That is not what we find in the Motu Proprio, [Notice that he avoids anything negative about Summorum Pontificum.] which requires us to distinguish the two “forms” and not to mix them: this is very wise. We have to wait and see; for the moment let us stick to what the Roman authorities say.

Yes.  Let is wait and see what the Roman authorities say.

I found Bp. Fellay’s tone and observations to be balanced.  I also believe he is on target with most of what he says here.

This Q&A was done in this month of February.

Can Fellay’s comments here be anything other than a carefully measured comment to the “Roman authorities”, especially in regard to an upcoming “Instruction” about Summorum Pontificum?

Posted in New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
29 Comments

QUAERITUR: priest answers cellphone during Mass

no phonesFrom a reader:

My wife attended Mass today with my children for our homeschooling co op. There were two priests concelebrating the Mass. The older priest’s cell phone started ringing and he got up and went to the side (Still on the altar) and took the call.

My children keep asking if this is ok? This is very confusing for them since we never see this happen when we attend the Mass in the EF?

How should we proceed?

If you have feather pillows, place them on a horse drawn cart.   Then, carefully lifting the pot of tar onto the back of the cart, light your torches and heft your pitchforks.

But seriously… we don’t know the reason for the call.  Perhaps he was waiting to hear if he had won the lottery, or had perhaps been chosen to appear on American Idol.  Perhaps he was waiting for notice about an indictment or a stock deal or news about someone who was dying.

It might have been really important!   Then again, maybe not.

I can understand a priest forgetting his cellphone in his pocket, and, it going off, digging it out and then turning it off and/or ignoring it.   I can understand that.  Really.

But answering it during Mass?

That’s just plain wrong.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

If he does this with regularity, you should say something to him about it.  Tell him that you and your children are sad because of what he does.

If he persists, I would say that the local bishop should be informed, perhaps with a photo of him doing so taken with the cellphone you failed to turn off before Mass began.   If it is an iPhone… well… you can put it in “airplane mode” and still used the camera.

Be sure to show it to the priest before you do anything else, perhaps by sending it immediately to his mobile during Mass.

Tell your children, no.  What the priest did was wrong.  But priests are human beings and sometimes they lose their heads, or don’t think, or just plain panic.  Sometimes priests aren’t very smart.   They are humans and they make mistakes.   Tell them to say an extra prayer to Mary, Queen of the clergy for that priest’s well-being.  If he is an older man, he has probably also done many good things in his ministry over the years.

VOTE FOR WDTPRSAlso, pray to the priest’s guardian angel to brick his phone if he ever does it again.

After that, perhaps you could have a little project with your kids.  Make signs with those NO PHONES symbols on them to hold up during Mass.

Then sit in the front pew.

Just kidding.

Finally, this could be counted as reason #78567367 for Summorum Pontificum.

Has anyone, honestly, anyone in the last three years, seen a priest during Mass in the Extraordinary Form answer his phone during Mass?

I, on the other hand, have seen it happen in the Ordinary Form – in a really wacky place.  Friends have told me they have seen this.   Never in the Extraordinary Form.

Think about it.

This is also an example of how priests during concelebration (which should be safe, legal and rare) have to work three times harder than the main celebrant to remain focused and reverent and every bit much there and dignified as the main celebrant.

Thus endeth the rant.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged ,
43 Comments