Clergy and music revisited

Remember the question about deacons and music ministry?

Vultus Christi had an interesting photo of a group of priests of the Diocese of Tulsa singing Gregorian chant during a Mass.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Linking Back |
30 Comments

French article on upcoming Ecclesia Dei & SSPX Motu Proprio

On the French language websit Golias there is an interesting article about the upcoming Motu Proprio which will concern the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

I don’t have time to translate it for you today.  Perhaps some of our French readers here can divvy it up and give us an English text.

Here is an interesting line:

Le nouveau Motu proprio à venir, que préparerait déjà le principal rédacteur du Motu proprio de 2007, Mgr Nicola Bux, professeur de théologie à Bari et conseiller estimé de Joseph Ratzinger, justifiera l’importance accordée à la dimension doctrinale de la controverse intégriste. Le rôle de Don Nicola ne saurait être assez souligné.

 

UPDATE 2122 GMT

A reader sent a translation.  It is a little choppy, but hey!  I didn’t have time to do one and this person stepped up to the plate!

 

According to our informations, and on the eve of the lefebvrist ordinations of next June 27th in Germany, the Pope wishes for the coming months to write a second motu proprio. Document to be spent this time not only to the liturgy in Latin, but to a more comprehensive reintegration of Lefebvre in the Church. By asking, of course conditions, but also by engaging the whole Church in this process. That’s serious!
 
In other words, the bishops will no longer be entitled to express openly their reluctance and even less to slow the return of the traditionalists. In fact one knows that the representatives of these currents regularly are complaining to the Pope about the obstacles to their reinstatement placed by the bishops and their entourage. Until then, Rome and the Ecclesia Dei commission bypassed the local bishops without, however, in general, openly disavowing them.

Thus, in 1988, the commission very quickly and very caringly get the situation of the Benedictine abbey of the Barroux Abbey sorted out, without informing or consulting the Archbishop of Avignon at the time, Archbishop Raymond BOUCHEX. More recently, Rome proceeded in the same way with respect to the Institut du Bon Pasteur, without informing the archbishop of Bordeaux, in which he sat. Recently, another signal was given by the Vatican which restored to her parish a traditionalist parish priest in dissent with his bishop in Calvados, so to remind the French bishops. Following such a new Motu proprio, a bishop considered too reluctant to welcome newly joined traditionalists will certainly be severely rebuked
The bishops no longer will be able to express their reservations

Benedict XVI and his advisers intend to enjoy the quiet summer to advance on the path of reconciliation. After the authorization to celebrate according all the old liturgical books (Motu proprio of 2007), after the lifting of the excommunication of the four schismatic bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, a new stage is opening up, more delicate however: That is concerning the divisive theological background in particular with regard to Vatican II and the Magisterium of last popes. You should know that the Pope has chosen the new secretary of the International Theological Commission, the Dominican Father Charles Morerod, precisely according to its sensitivity close to the traditionalist partners. In fact one must be aware that Morerod is the author of a doctoral thesis submitted to the faculty of theology at the University of Freiburg, Switzerland, on the master general of the Dominicans, commentator of Thomas Aquinas, Thomas said Vio Cajetan (1469-1534) in his polemic debate with Luther.

Father Morerod for the theological agreement

But Father Morerod was especially noted for his work Tradition and Unity of Christians. The dogma as a condition of possibility of ecumenism (Word and Silence, Paris, 2005), in which he takes a very drastic stance against a more liberal ecumenism (as theologians Fries, Rahner or Tillard) in emphasizing the essential nature of a true Catholic thought, theologicallly and philosophically indivisible.

Hence, it accentuates the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism in a way that does not displease the most common "tradi" streams. The same Father Morerod strived to trounce the thought of a British Liberal Protestant, John Hick, wose relativist spirit he specifically denies. Oh, this reminds us of someone else … The choice of Morerod Father is therefore not a matter of chance! In a very concrete way, the Ecclesia Dei commission will be subjected to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith (cf. Golias Hebdo n ° 85). There was actually a consideration to join it to the congregation for divine worship, but this was to forget that the problem is not solely or mainly liturgical.
The new Motu Proprio to come, that is said prepared already tby he principal drafter of the Motu proprio of 2007, Monsignor Nicola Bux, professor of theology at Bari and advisor of Joseph Ratzinger, would justify the importance accorded to the doctrine of the traditionalist controversy. The role of Don Nicola will not be stressed enough.

The Italian prelate Nicola Bux for the new Motu Proprio

Consultor to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith and looking for a strategic promotion, Bishop Bux, an Italian priest of 63 years, friendly and discreet, but frighteningly conservative and accurate in its argument, is the determined and tireless craftsman not only of moving closer to the traditionalists but of a restoration of traditional Catholicism as a whole. He drafted the 2007 Motu Proprio on the Mass in Latin. In his latest book, released last October in Italy, "The Reform of Benedict XVI," prefaced by Vittorio Messori, Msgr Bux reckons that rebuilding the essence of the « sacred and divine liturgy, which cannot be made by the hand of man » is necessary. Otherwise, it "would serve no purpose other than to represent himself and upon all it would not save the man or the world, nor would it sanctify it." He is convinced that the liturgy of Saint Pius V better honors the sense of the sacred than that of Paul VI. He criticizes also quite fiercely the reform named of the pope Montini’s name, a true "decomposition" of the liturgy, according to him, expressing and exacerbating what the theologian Louis Bouyer called the "decomposition of Catholicism."

Indeed, Msgr Bux is not confined solely to the liturgical field. He denounces the opening to the world that defiles the Christian mystery and censures the relaxed life of priests in particular with regard to privacy (célibacy. ..). He also attacks the fundamental deviance of the contemporary theology, that he claims to operate an "anthropological turn" (which he also denounces, following Cornelio Fabro, in Karl Rahner). To thise he opposes a new theocentric and Christocentric turning as it may be symbolized by the celebration to the East, his back turned to the faithful. It is easy to imagine the content and tone of the future and near Motu Proprio with such a writer.

Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, who is currently undergoing health problems, is distressed, frustrated and demoralized, no longer has the power nor the liveliness necessary to oppose such an ultra-conservative reversal .

Far from appearing as a defense of the Council, the Motu Proprio will propose a minimalist reading of it, erasing its novelties and questionning its spirit. In sum, a council "according to the tradition" like Archbishop Lefebvre reckoned he could accept it!

Is this still the Council of which Paul VI proclaimed the importance in 1976 when he was facing the integrist dissent? Nothing is less certain.

Posted in SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM |
28 Comments

QUAERITUR: one confession for many indulgences?

From a reader:

The year of St. Paul and the year of the priest overlap by 10 days.  Assuming the other requirements for obtaining the indulgence are met, is only one confession necessary to obtain more than one plenary indulgence?

"Yes We Can!"

One confession of Holy Communion will suffice for the gaining of many indulgences, provided that the person did the works required and is properly disposed.

UPDATE:

A reader chimed in with this:

From the Apostolic Penitentiary, “The Gift of the Indulgence” (2000), n. 5, under the heading “General Remarks on Indulgences”:
 
One sacramental Confession suffices for several plenary indulgences, but a separate Holy Communion and a separate prayer for the Holy Father’s intentions are required for each plenary indulgence.
 
The same document also says these additional conditions may be fulfilled "about 20" days before or after the indulgenced act, the most generous interpretation of that condition that I’ve seen anywhere.

This helps to clarify the situation.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Just Too Cool |
15 Comments

QUAERITUR: When is the feast of St. Jane Frances de Chantal?

The following is a piece from the May-June Newsletter of the USCCB’s Committee on Divine Worship.

It concerns the shifting date of the feast of St. Jane Frances de Chantal. 

People who are interesting in the TLM, the Extraordinary Use of the Roman Rite will find this interesting.  It mentions Summorum Pontificum.

My emphases and comments.

Memorial of Saint Jane Frances de Chantal: Which Date is Correct?

Over the past several years, there has been much confusion regarding the celebration of the memorial of Saint Jane Frances de Chantal. The Secretariat of Divine Worship has carefully researched this issue, and now hopes to resolve the confusion. The timeline of her shifting feast day is presented below:

1769-1969 – August 21

Sister Jane Frances de Chantal, co-founder of the religious Order of the Visitation of Holy Mary (commonly known today as the Visitation Sisters), died on December 13, 1641. [Very often the feast of a saint is fixed on the day the saint died, that is, their birth into heaven.  Sometimes it is fixed to the date the saints relics are "translated" from one place to another.  At times, the day used has to do with some other event.] Two years after her canonization by Pope Clement XIII in July 1767, St. Jane Frances’ feast day was fixed on August 21, and remained so until after the Second Vatican Council. (As a result of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI, this date is still observed as her class III feast in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.)

1970-1988 – December 12

In the 1969 reform of the liturgical calendar, her feast day was made an optional memorial and set on December 12. [tinker tinker] December 13, the date St. Jane Frances died, was already occupied with the memorial of St. Lucy.) In November 1971, however, the Bishops of the United States, wishing to honor the role Our Lady of Guadalupe has played in the Americas, decided to insert Our Lady’s memorial – also on December 12 – into the proper calendar for the dioceses of the United States of America. That decision was confirmed by the Congregation for Divine Worship on December 28, 1971 (Prot. n. 2153/71).

Thus in the United States, St. Jane Frances’ optional memorial was impeded for 17 years by the obligatory memorial of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Our Lady’s memorial was later raised to a feast in the United States by its Bishops in November 1987 (a Marian Year) and confirmed by the Congregation for Divine Worship on January 8, 1988 (Prot. n. 1341/87).

1989-2001 – August 18

To allow St. Jane Frances’ feast to be celebrated, the Bishops of the United States voted in November 1988 to petition the Holy See to transfer the optional memorial of St. Jane Frances from December 12 to August 18 [! Not August 21.] in the United States – the date recommended by the Visitation Sisters. The request was granted by the Congregation for Divine Worship on January 20, 1989 (Prot. N. 1609/88).

2002-present – August 12

Finally, [whew!] on December 18, 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments decreed that, because her memorial was continually being impeded by the celebration of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the optional memorial of St. Jane Frances was transferred in the universal calendar to August 12. This decree (Prot. n. 2492/01/L) has superseded the 1988 request of the U.S. Bishops. Therefore, [the bottom line is….] in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the optional memorial of St. Jane Frances de Chantal is August 12; on the Extraordinary Form calendar, her class III feast is celebrated August 21.

When tinkeritis sets in, you never know what is going to happen.

But, it remained the same date for the TLM since 1767.

In the 2004 Martyrologium Romanum St. Jane has two entries!  12 August for the memorial and 13 December for her death.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM |
15 Comments

QUAERITUR: St. John the Baptist and blessings

From a reader:

Dear Fr. Z,
 
Happy Solemnity of the Birth of St. John the Baptist!  Again, I want to thank you for all you do and especially for your clear analysis.
 
I have a question regarding this solemnity.  When I was growing up, my father would never allow us to go swimming before St. John the Baptist day because, he said, the water was blessed that day (and we would be protected from drowning). 
 
I have never heard about this from any other source.  Are you aware of any Church tradition regarding blessing of the water on this day?  Is it, perhaps, just a Polish tradition?

My my,… I have never heard that one.

Perhaps some reader can chime in.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box |
26 Comments

Annus Sacerdotalis: a website

A website for the Year for Priests: Annus Sacerdotalis.

This site is from the Holy See’s Congregation for Clergy.

Posted in Year of Priests |
3 Comments

Ed Peters on SSPX ordinations

The distinguished canonist Ed Peters, on his blog In The Light Of The Law, has opined about the illicit ordinations performed by the SSPX.

This is timely especially because of the tensions in Germany between the bishops in that conference and the SSPX.  The Holy See wants to reconcile the SSPX and bring it into closer and manifest unity with the Bishop of Rome while the bishops in Germany seem determined to alienate the group so as to drive a wedge and keep it out of unity.

Here is Peters on the issue of the SSPX’s ordinations, with my emphases and comments.

 Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations

There really isn’t any "news" associated with the recent SSPX ordinations in Minnesota–and there is certainly nothing surprising about them–though three comments seem in order. [Remember that the SSPX’s American seminary is located in Winona, MN.]

First, contrary to some reports, the Catholic Church does recognize these ordinations, [that is, they are valid] by which we must understand, though, that 13 more men have taken the priesthood of Christ illegally from bishops acting in a schismatic manner. [Peters does not say that they are in schism.] While there is no excommunication associated with such priestly ordinations per se (as there is for episcopal ordinations contrary to 1983 CIC 1382), objectively speaking, participation in these ceremonies was still gravely sinful. [And the priests are suspended from the moment they are ordained.  They may not function as priests for the Church.  The power that comes from ordination is not enough.  The Church must permit the use of that power.]

Second, any comments that I might have offered concerning excommunication for (what seem clearly to be) new acts of schism under 1983 CIC 1364 seem pre-empted by Rome’s gratuitous lifting of the excommunications against SSPX leadership last January. Indeed, I am hard-pressed to think of any canons that Rome appears willing to enforce against the SSPX. [That is in itself an interesting point.]

But these two points suggest an ironic Third: the fewer sacramental acts that Rome defends against SSPX appropriation, the more the SSPX seems to resemble the Orthodox Churches and a few other groups–Rome recognizes the validity of their orders, too, but (per 1983 CIC 1) it does not attempt to impose canonical penalties on them for conferring those orders outside of its communion. [Interesting.]

I thought lifting the SSPX excommunications was meant to bring them closer to Catholic unity; instead, it seems to confirm their drifting more distant.

 

Time will tell.

I am sure a lot of fans of the SSPX out there will object to Mr. Peters’ observations, but he has some good points… and from the point of view of a canonist.

I suppose we will now have comments about the mythical "emergency powers", argument.

 

Posted in Linking Back | Tagged , , , , ,
146 Comments

QUAERITUR: deacon in music ministry

From a reader:

There is a situation I would like to ask your (or your readers’) advice about.
 
If a man whose job was to be a music director at a parish with a serious sacred music program perceived a calling to the diaconate and eventually was ordained a deacon, would he be able to continue his ministry as a choir director in the choir loft?  Or would he be required to serve as a deacon at the altar in every case?  More particularly, if there was a time when the priest wished to distribute holy communion under both species, would the deacon be obliged to do so in preference to any extraordinary minister, even if it meant abandoning the music program that he directs?
 
I’m not quite sure I see the solution to this from the official sources I’ve read so far.
 
Thanks for considering fielding this question on WDTPRS.

No, the deacon would not be obliged to leave the choir loft in favor of the presbyterium (the proper name for the sanctuary).

First, consider that the sacred music for Holy Mass should be the proper texts the Church assigns for Mass.  Other texts are substitutions.   The choir for Mass was through the centuries perceived as an extension of the ministry of clerics, serving Mass, since they were singing the texts for Mass.  This is one reason why there was a prohibition against mixed choirs.  This is a reason why some people don’t want lay people in the congregation to be singing chant responses, etc.   The idea is that the choir was an extension of service at the altar, even when not all the members of the choir were clerics.

Based on that, there is nothing incongruous for a deacon to be working in music ministry.  That is to say, he finds a d good and proper place in the choir loft.

Second, it is pretty hard to ask for clerics to mix ministries, as it were.  For example, consider the situation of a priest or deacon vested at the altar in the sanctuary who is simultaneously trying to act as the MC.  It just doesn’t go very well.  I would say that the same applies to the deacon who is in music ministry in the choir loft.  One or the other.

Third, in my experience I have know cleric musicians who indeed stay with the choir and do not leave it except for rare occasions.   For example, the great Fr. Perrone in Detriot stayed with the choir at Assumption Grotto parish.  The legendary Msgr. Richard Schuler of St. Agnes in St. Paul directed the choir for decades in the choir loft.  He would dress in his proper choir dress and remain there, unless there was a special reason – for example he also had to preach for a first Mass.

So, based on these points and my experience, I see no compelling reason why a deacon would be obliged to leave the choir loft for other duties during the course of a Mass.   I think he could if necessary, but I don’t think he must.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box |
35 Comments

QUAERITUR: promoting reverence at Communion

From a priest reader:

Quick question with regard to GIRM #281.

"Holy Communion has a more complete as a sign when it is received under both kinds.  For in this manner of reception a fuller light shines on the sign of the Eucharist banquet." 
 
I want to promote reverence for the Holy Eucharist through such things as receiving communion on the tongue at the altar rail with the use of a communion plate.  I realize people may receive standing on the hand but nevertheless I am encouraging them to receive kneeling and on the tongue and most do so. 
 
Should I be working to offer communion under both species? 

I am of two minds on this.

First, when you involve both kinds you increase dramatically the possibility of unintentional profanation of the Eucharist.  From that point of view, I would say no.

On the other hand, the GIRM is right.  Communion under both kinds is a more complete sign.  Over the centuries, however, it was not necessary to use both kinds because people were properly catechized.  Frankly, I don’t see the need for this with great frequency or with large numbers.  I suspect that in some places, both kinds were introduced precisely to be able to get large numbers of lay people "doing things". 

If you decide you would want to use both kind and also promote kneeling and eliminating Communion in the hand, perhaps you can introduce Communion by intinction.  This automatically eliminates Communion in the hand and also uses both kinds. 

Practically speaking this might be a problem if your parish has no other clerics for the distribution of Communion.  If you want to introduce kneeling for intincted Communion, which sounds like a great idea to me, a Communion rail would be really helpful.

I know a few priests who have introduced Communion under both kinds with intinction so as to get rid of Communion in the hand and provide the fuller sign.  They have had good results.

Perhaps people at parishes with Communion under both kinds using intinction can chime in here with information about how it is handled.

I suspect there was an extended period of parish-wide catechesis before this was introduced.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Mail from priests | Tagged ,
89 Comments

QUAERITUR: Old & new calendar – feast of St. John Vianney

From a reader:

I have a question for you regarding the celebration of feasts that fall on a different date in the new calendar rather than the old. Our diocesan office of worship is planning events for the year of priests, and is considering the celebration of a Solemn High Mass in the EF for the feast of St. John Vianney, with the Bishop assisting at the throne in our Cathedral church.

My question is, since the date of his feast in the old calendar is August 7th, but now falls on August 4th, is it possible to celebrate this Mass, in the EF, on August 4th, or must it be celebrated on August 7th? Thank you for any help you may be able to provide.

 

A similar question came up for the observance of the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul during this Pauline Year (which isn’t over, btw!).  

It was asked whether or not one could transfer the observance to coincide with the newer calendar and other celebrations. 

The question was answered by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei answered with common sense: of course!

I have absolutely no reason to believe that were one to ask the Commission about this matter, for the Year for Priests, the answer would come back in the way commonsensical way.

I would in not hesitate to coordinate the calendar for such an important occasion during this year for priests.  I am confident that this is the answer which will come back from the PCED.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Year of Priests |
8 Comments