Psalmus 42:4

The Feast of the Assumption at Holy Family Parish, Vancouver. More recordings can be found at http://www.esnips.com/web/Assumption2009. Recordings made on an Incipio Lloyd iPod Nano attachment.

Assumption 2009 - Solemn Mass - Photos

2009-08-18T13:50:00.004+08:00

The Feast of the Assumption at Holy Family Parish, Vancouver. More photos can be found at http://www.zooomr.com/photos/jcwl85/sets/49430/

Jan 2008 High Mass in Singapore! - Change of Venue

2007-12-28T21:45:00.000+08:00

Please note the change in venue to St Patrick's School Chapel (490 East Coast Road). We are eternally grateful to the Lasallian Brothers for letting use their Chapel.

Et Verbum Caro Factum Est

2007-12-25T07:53:00.000+08:00

Jan 2008 High Mass in Singapore!

2007-12-22T20:24:00.001+08:00

Romanism in Singapore

2007-11-18T16:53:00.000+08:00

Credence Table before Mass

During the Offertory

Per Ipsum et cum ipso...

Disclaimer: Although the crucifix was turned to face the congregation, another smaller one was placed behind it so that the Corpus does face the celebrant. An alb was also laid on the vestry, but it was not worn. Still, for once the pectorale (pectoral cross) is under the chasuble.

Habemus Blogam! :)

2007-10-30T19:19:00.000+08:00

Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: Habemus Blogam!

The Latin Mass Community in Singapore finally has a blog of its own. Say hello to "Extraordinary from Singapore".

The objective of this blog is to keep this group of computer-savy faithful informed, of the latest developments of the Extraordinary Form Movement in Singapore. Work is in progress to secure a regular celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

Please feel free to link yourself and friends to this blog. Traditional catechism, prayers and devotions will also be listed on this blog.

And the News gets Better :)

2007-10-13T00:48:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]

There is an interesting piece on Petrus.

My translation and emphases.

Mass in Latin, a "Petrus" exclusice – Msgr. Perl of the [Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" speaks up: "Too many disobedient bishops and priests, a clarification on the Pope’s Motu Proprio under consideration

by Bruno Volpe

CITTA’ DEL VATICANO - "It is true, we are drafting an instruction-document on the correct interpretation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, which derestricted the Mass according to the liturgical books of St. Pius V as they were modified by Bl. John XXIII." So did Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" affirm in an exclusive interview with Petrus. He added, "Even though it is not a Congregation, we have received the faculty to prepare this document to define some aspects of the papal Motu Proprio among which, for example, the meaning of "stable group" (gruppo stabile). We have therefore to clear up what is meant by "stable group", precisely how many people have to ask their own parish priest (parroco) to celebrate Mass with the pre-Conciliar rite."

Q: Msgr. Peter, is this instruction needed because of various protests raised by bishops and priests who are contrary to the new norms concerning access to Mass with the Tridentine rite?

"The situation is in the plain sight of everyone. In any event, after the Pope’s Motu Proprio it was reasonable to foresee opposing reactions. Some people showed enthusiasm, others not. Still, it would be enough to consider that the Pope’s Motu Proprio didn’t fall out of the sky, but is the fruit of a long process."

Q: So why do some bishops and many priests not accept it?

You’d have to ask them. Personally, I believe that the problem is of a more general nature. Today, in many spheres of society, the sense of obedience and respect of authority has been lost. Few truly are, so to say, able to obey."

Q: So the Tridentine rite of St. Pius V, characterized by liturgical beauty and spirituality, was never abolished by the Church…

Absolutely not. The Second Vatican Council never canceled out the previous Missal. I hold that Pope Benedict XVI has done well to derestrict it, thus underscoring the value of a patrimony, a jewel of the Church. I don’t want to make comparisons between the Mass of Pope Paul VI and the previous Mass, for that wouldn’t be right. But historically is it not well-advised blot out the value of tradition."

Q: Regarding liturgical abuses, defined as "at the edge of the bearable" by Benedict XVI himself in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, there are always more…

"You’re telling me!" And no one manages to eliminate them, precisely because, as I was saying, there no longer exists a sense of respect for authority. The liturgy cannot be imposed, but it seems right to affirm that after the Second Vatican Council, and by this I obviously don’t mean to give out any opinion of condemnation, the Mass sometimes was transformed into something emotional, as if its true worth as sacrifice and gift was put aside. It was thought that the new might be better, that the new is always better. This happens also in daily life… new shoes are thought to be better than the old ones…".

Q: Finally, a clarification: The faithful in communion with the Pope and the Church of Rome can assist at Masses of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X or do they incur an excommunication?

"Those who assist at a Mass of the SSPX are absolutely not excommunicated. The liturgy is valid, even if they are considered schismatic. Moreover, the liturgy of the Orthodox is also valid for Catholics."

In a way, the interviewer wasted his precious questions on things that we already know.

About that last point: Msgr. Perl is not saying something in contrast to the Cardinal President of the Commission. He is just saying that even if the SSPXers were schismatic (he isn’t saying they are) Catholics would still be able to go to a Mass without incurring the censure.

Still, the golden nuggets in this interview are these:

the Commission is considering interpretive guidelines for Summorum Pontificum
the Commission has competence to issue such guidelines
that competence supersedes that of individual diocesan bishops
the Commission interprets the Motu Proprio
the Commission is very aware of those who are opposing the Motu Proprio ("in plain sight")

And on the level of Msgr. Perl’s opinion:

in this day and age few people are capable of true obedience
many bishops and priests speaking and acting against the Pope’s provisions are showing disobedience
just because something is newer it is not therefore better

I have known Msgr. Perl well since 1989.

He is a very good man for this position in these times.

I am glad he is speaking his mind about these issues.

Instruments of Evil

2007-10-12T12:46:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]

A kind reader sent me this fascinating excerpt from a talk given by His Excellency Most Rev. Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.

The talk was entitled “Faith, Obedience and Theology” and was delivered at the annual meeting of the Dutch Latin Liturgy Association (Vereniging voor Latijnse Liturgie) in ’s-Hertogenbosch (The Netherlands) on 6 October 2007.

He gave the talk in English, but the person who sent it to me translated it from Dutch. So, it probably varies a little from the original English, which perhaps someone out there can dig up for us.

Read this, with my emphases.

“The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7^th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.”

NB: His Excellency has made a connection between Pope Benedict’s decision to promulgate Summorum Pontificum and a remedy for ills in the Church, namely, empty churches and empty seminaries.

Thus, this the Pope’s provisions are willed by God, for they comes from Peter as something for the good of the Church. They seek the defend the Church and build her up at critical points of attack by the devil, namely, what happens in a church (worship of God and sanctification through the sacraments, especially Holy Mass) and what happens in a seminary (men are formed to be alter Christus).

Thus, anyone who resists the provisions of the Motu Proprio, aimed at healing these problems of the Church, actually aids the Enemy of the soul and becomes the devil’s pawns.

We don’t have time to waste.

President of the Italian Episcopal Conference speaks on the Motu Proprio

2007-09-28T23:25:00.000+08:00

From the main address of the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, to the permanent council of the Conference (September 17, 2007).

The initiative regarding which even the intra-Church attention has been focused in the past few months is the "Motu proprio" Summorum Pontificum, on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970 and officially in force from the past September 14. The goal of this pronouncement is clearly entirely spiritual and pastoral. In fact, on the one hand, "it behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer" - as the Pope writes in the accompanying letter to the "Motu proprio" -; on the other, it is necessary "to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew".

Within this horizon, he deigns to include as an "extraordinary" expression in the lex orandi of the Church the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and aggiornato by Blessed John XXIII in 1962, though the "ordinary" way remains the Roman Missal published by Paul VI in 1970. And he insists in clarifying that there will not be two rites, but "two uses of the one Roman rite", who all [of us] wish always to be at the center of the ecclesial life, an occasion of full "reconciliation" and of a living unity in the Church herself.

What the Pope encourages us to adopt, beyond the cultural forces to which one is necessarily susceptible, is thus an inclusive, and not a confrontational, interpretative key. In the history of the liturgy, as in the life of the Church, there is "growth and progress, but never rupture", as he had already had the chance to affirm in the speech to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005. In fact, in that occasion, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, he indicated as valid not "the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture", but rather that of "reform, of renewal in continuity with the one subject-Church". In other words, it is the solicitude for the unity of the Church "in space and time" the motivating force which moves Benedict XVI, a matter which fundamentally pertains to the Successor of Peter.

But this passion for unity must move every Christian and every pastor considering the prospects which are opened with the "Motu proprio". And not, therefore, the search for a personal aesthetic fancy, detached from the community and often in opposition to others, but a will to include oneself always more in the Mystery of the Church which prays and celebrates, not excluding anyone and without a forestalling opposition regarding other liturgical forms or regarding the Second Vatican Council. Only thus will it be avoided that a measure intended towards greater unity and fervor in the Christian community be used instead to hurt and divide it.

I wish to add, nonetheless, that I am reasonably optimistic on a better appraisal of the "Motu proprio" in the life of our parishes. And I trust that certain pessimistic concerns, voiced [at the time], soon showed themselves to be unfounded. The sense of balance which has always characterized our clergy and, therefore, our pastoral [work], will allow [us] to find, thanks to the moderating action of the Bishops, the just way to make the new bud blossom in the living plant of ecclesial liturgy, and even, as a final result, to relaunch and increase the latter in its entirety

Reduced to a Show

2007-09-28T23:22:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Catholic Conservative]

by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Preface to the French edition of the Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr Klaus Gamber.

A Young priest recently told me: "Today we need a new liturgical movement". He was expressing a desire, these days, only deliberately superficial souls would ignore.

What matters to that priest is not the conquest of new, bolder liberties. For, where is the liberty that we have yet to arrogate ourselves? That priest understood that we need a new beginning born from deep within the liturgy, as liturgical movement intended . . .

In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.

On the one hand, we have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims.

Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the "doing" becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.

On the other hand, there is the conservation of ritual forms whose greatness is always moving but which, when pushed to extremes, manifests an obstinate isolationism and leaves, ultimately, a mark of sadness.

There is no doubt that between these two poles there are priests and parishioners who celebrate the new liturgy with respect and solemnity. But they, too, are made to feel doubtful by the contradiction of the two extremes and, in the final analysis, the lack of unity within the Church makes their faith seem - and wrongly so in most cases - just their own personal version of neo-conservatism.

Therefore, a new spiritual impulse is necessary so that the liturgy becomes a community activity of the Church for us once again and to remove it from the will of parish priests and their liturgical teams.

There can be no "fabricating" a liturgical movement of this kind, just as there can be no "fabricating" something which is alive. But a contribution can be made to its development by seeking to re- assimilate the sprit of the liturgy and by defending publicity that which was received.

The new beginning needs "fathers" who would serve as models, who would not content themselves with just showing the way . . . It is difficult to express in just a few words what is important in this diatribe of liturgists and what is not. But perhaps what I have to say will be of use. J.A. Jungman, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, offered his definition of the liturgy of his time, as it was intended in the West, and he represented it in terms of historical research. He described it as "liturgy which is the fruit of development".

This is probably in contrast with the Eastern notion which does not see liturgy as developing or growing in history but as the reflection of eternal liturgy whose light, through the sacred celebration, illumines our changing times with its unchanging beauty and greatness. Both conceptions are legitimate and by definition they are not irreconcilable.

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.

We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

Qui habitat

2007-09-18T15:27:00.000+08:00

Get this widget

Track details

eSnips Social DNA

The above is a polyphonic piece for 24 voices composed by Josquin Desprez. The lyrics are as follows

Psalm 90:1-8 (Latin Vulgate)
Qui hábitat in adiutório Altíssimi, in protectióne Dei cæli commorábitur.
Dicet Dómino : Suscéptor meus es tu, et refúgium meum: Deus meus sperábo in eum.
Quóniam ipse liberávit me de láqueo venántium, et a verbo áspero.
Scápulis suis obumbrábit tibi: et sub pennis eius sperábis.
Scuto circúmdabit te véritas eius: non timébis a timóre noctúrno.
A sagitta volánte in die, a negótio perambulánte in ténebris: ab incúrsu et dæmónio meridiáno.
Cadent a látere tuo mille, et decem míllia a dextris tuis: ad te autem non appropinquábit.
Verúmtamen óculis tuis considerábis: et retributiónem peccatórum vidébis.

English Translation (Douay Rheims)
He that dwelleth in the aid of the most High, shall abide under the protection of the God of Jacob.
He shall say to the Lord: Thou art my protector, and my refuge: my God, in him will I trust.
For he hath delivered me from the snare of the hunters: and from the sharp word.
He will overshadow thee with his shoulders: and under his wings thou shalt trust.
His truth shall compass thee with a shield: thou shalt not be afraid of the terror of the night.
Of the arrow that flieth in the day, of the business that walketh about in the dark: of invasion, or of the noonday devil.
A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand: but it shall not come nigh thee.
But thou shalt consider with thy eyes: and shalt see the reward of the wicked.

And I should mention that the Desprez is a Lutheran. See, even Protestants use Latin haha.

Archbishop Ranjith Interview

2007-09-16T22:02:00.000+08:00

Courtesy of NLM, emphasis mine

[The following interview by Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario Palmaro with Archbishop Ranjith originally appeared in Italian in Il Foglio -- and was translated by the kindness of one of our readers. Archbishop Ranjith's comments are in italics.]

ROME. Today, September 14th, comes into force the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict which "liberalises" the Tridentine Mass, thus allowing the faithful who so desire to participate, in every parish, in celebrations in Latin according to the Missal of St. Pius V. In contrast until now to do so a special dispensation by the diocesan bishop was necessary.

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith is the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Vatican vice-minister of liturgy.

In this interview he expresses the expectations and concerns of his dicastery in view of the reception which the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum" has had in the Catholic Church. The document through which Benedict XVI has liberalised the Tridentine Mass has in fact aroused a great deal of interest. But it seems that many judge it only in ideological terms in light of the so-called spirit of the II Vatican Council.

For Msgr. Ranjith, however, "the Pope has profoundly esteemed the increasing requests of faithful in favour of the return of the Tridentine rite, and, also taking into account the current results of the post-conciliar liturgical reforms has made his decision.

"What is to be done now is not seeing spectres of divisions or retrograde theologies behind this decision, but to listen attentively and to obey with loyalty. It is not true that the reform of Paul VI is being devaluated. The Pope calls it the ordinary expression of the Mass. I believe that because of this decision some essential values of the liturgy will again be emphasised more, be it in the one or in the other way of celebrating.

"I am certain that above all the bishops, who at the moment of assuming their episcopal ministry have professed their complete loyalty and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, will accept this decision with sentiments of generous collaboration and will safeguard the faithful implementation of the instructions of the Motu Proprio in the manner in which it is assigned to them, respecting the specific identities of the two manners of celebrating.

"I see that generally, the Motu Proprio has been well received. In any case, to speak of this as a move against the II Vatican Council would not only be a complete misapprehension, but also an attempt to create divisions in the Church. I don't see any reason for such alarmism."

The Pope seems to have made the liturgical question one of the fundamental themes of his pontificate.

"Already since the time of his episcopal ministry in Munich he had shown a great interest for the liturgical question. That on which he, now as Pope, continues to insist is the centrality of the eternal principle lex orandi, lex credendi, and the absolute necessity to know, celebrate and live profoundly the mystery of the liturgy as life-giving principle of the Church.

"The Pope wants that all the faithful enjoy that noble and transcendent as well as profoundly transforming sense of the liturgy. The liturgy is not so much what is being studied, as what is being celebrated, believed and lived."

There are many young priests, under 40, who are interested in the traditional liturgy.

"It's an interesting phenomenon, this demand by the young priests. To me it is a sign of the times and the II Vatican Council advised us to always be attentive to these signs. I see a strong thirst among them to be true to the demands of their vocation. The youth of today who decide to become priests make a choice which entails perhaps more sacrifices than those of yesterday. When we entered seminary, for instance, the atmosphere was more religious than today. I see that in some cases, this search leads them to choose a more traditional sense of the liturgy, to wear the cassock or some priestly or religious insignia, and to be ready to make other choices indicative of their vocation.

"This should not signify a condemnation of others who maybe have thought not to insist so much on these external apsects of their identity. But the times change. The youth want more coherence. The enthusiasm of the youth is always encouraged, not disregarded."

In these years many liturgical celebrations have shown a tendency to an abasement of the divine towards the human instead of the raising of the human towards the supernatural. Do you believe that the traditional liturgy will contribute to remedy this fact?

"Not only the traditional liturgy, but also the one of the Novus Ordo, if it is celebrated with faith, devotion, decorum, a sense of faithfulness to the norms and spirtual rigour, is capable of raising the human heart towards a true adoration of God. As the Pope says, 'the liturgy ... is veritatis splendor'. It (sc. the liturgy) is not something which we are doing, but rather something heavenly to which we are called to conform ourselves also in the external aspects. On the other hand it is the Church who celebrates the liturgy: adoration and praise of its Lord, as his people. Because of this ecclesial dimension, in the words of the Council in "Sacrosanctum Concilium", "no one else at all, be he even a priest, shall add, subtract or change anything on his own initiative in matters liturgical." The current problem is a spirit of disorder in the liturgical discipline, widely spread in different parts of the world. This situation is the result of a defective liturgical formation on different levels. Various priests do not know the true meaning of what is celebrated and propagate a "do it yourself" liturgy.

"Unfortunately, in some cases even the bishops themselves have become immobile and inconsistent, passively tolerating this situation or even, in some rare cases encouraging such attitudes. And then there are rather pedantic attitudes of some theorists, who have unfortunately forgotten that the liturgy is not so much an intellectual act as an act of adoration, and therefore of profound spirituality and faith."

We are witnessing a flight of the faithful towards two opposite extremes: the search for mysticism at all costs or the banalisation.

"What has happened in the name of the so-called 'spirit of the Council', which has not even been faithful to the instructions of its (the Council's) various documents, has caused grave damages to the Church, above all because of certain liturgical adventurism. This observation must not be interpreted as a criticism of the Council, but as a proposal to link again to what it had really stated. Some of the major changes in the liturgy have never been wished for by the Council. The banalisation of the eternal mysteries of the liturgy, achieved and justified by some liturgists, is now creating a growing demand to abandon altogether the earthly aspects and enter a phase of marked mysticism. A sane sense of equilibrium between the two aspects, i.e. the descendent and the ascendent, as well as a true appreciation of the eternal value of what truly happens in the liturgy, is important. The constant clarifications of Pope Benedict on the true nature of the liturgy are indications for the Church and above all for the bishops and the clergy about that necessary equilibrium. Without such an attitude one risks falling into superficiality and formalism on one side, and on the other side into a spiritualism that does not inspire to make Christian choices in life."

By means of the liturgical errors also doctrinal errors have come to pass. Will it be possible to remedy these also by means of the Tridentine liturgy?

"I believe yes, but the word 'also' is important. We mustn't abandon the attempts to make known to all the eternal value of every form of liturgical celebration, above all of the Novus Ordo. By way of the correction of some of these liturgical exaggerations, which probably the Tridentine Mass will facilitate in the coming years, there will be a further improvement of the Novus Ordo and thus also an overcoming of the theological crisis caused by the banalising tendencies of the liturgy."

Many priests and many faithful seem fearful to request the application of what the Pope has determined to be their right. Perhaps an encouragement is needed.

"I don't see what we need fear, for fear means a lack of faith. Besides, it would be grave in a world which abandons the sense of discipline and suffers because of this, if any shepherd of the Church gave a negative example in this sense, disobeying the Pope. That would implicate a counter-witness to Christ Who humbled Himself, and became obedient to the Father unto the death of the cross."

Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos Interview

2007-09-16T22:00:00.000+08:00

Emphasis mine

VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 13, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos says he hopes that the Eucharist is never a motive for discord, but only love.

The president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei said this on Vatican Radio today, the day before "Summorum Pontificum" -- Benedict XVI's letter issued "motu proprio" (on his own initiative) on liberalizing the use of the 1962 Roman Missal -- goes into effect.

The cardinal spoke about the true meaning of the pontifical document.

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: I would say that John Paul II wanted to give to the faithful who loved the ancient rite -- some of whom left to join Archbishop Lefebvre's movement, but who later returned in order to maintain full unity with the Vicar of Christ -- the opportunity to celebrate the rite that was nearest to their sensibility.

The Holy Father Benedict XVI participated from the beginning in the Lefebvrite question and therefore knew well the problem created for those faithful by the liturgical reform.

The Pope has a special love for the liturgy -- a love that is translated into a capacity for study, of learning more about the liturgy itself. This is why Benedict XVI considers the liturgy from before the Council reform an inestimable treasure.

The Pope does not want to go backward. It is important to know and underline that the Council did not prohibit the liturgy of St. Pius V and we must also say that the Fathers of the Council celebrated the Mass of Pius V.

It is not -- as many sustain because they don't know the reality -- a step backward. On the contrary.

The Council wanted to give ample freedom to the faithful. One of these freedoms was that of taking this treasure -- as the Pope says -- which is the liturgy, to keep it alive.

Q: What has changed, really, with this "motu proprio"?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: With this "motu proprio," in reality, there has not been a big change. The important thing is that in this moment, priests can decide, without permission from the Holy See or the bishop, to celebrate the Mass in the ancient rite. And this holds true for all priests. It is the parish priests who must open the doors to those priests that, having the faculty, go to celebrate. It is not therefore necessary to ask any other permission.

Q: Your Eminence, this document was accompanied by fear and polemics. What is not true about what has been said or read?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: It is not true, for example, that power was taken away from bishops over the liturgy, because the Code of Canon Law says who must give permission to say Mass and it is not the bishop: The bishop gives the "celebret," the power to be able to celebrate, but when a priest has this power, it is the parish priest and the chaplain who must grant the altar to celebrate.

If anyone impedes him, it is up to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in the name of the Holy Father, to take measures until this right -- which is a right that is clear to the faithful by now -- is respected.

Q: On the vigil of the "motu proprio" taking effect, what are your hopes?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: My hopes are these: The Eucharist is the greatest thing we have, it is the greatest manifestation of love, of God’s redemptive love who wants to stay with us with this Eucharistic presence. This must never be a motive for discord but only love.

I hope that this can be a reason for joy for all those who love tradition, a reason for joy for all those parishes that will no longer be divided, but will have -- on the contrary -- a multiplicity of holiness with a rite that was certainly a factor and instrument of sanctification for more than a thousand years.

We thank, therefore, the Holy Father who recovered this treasure for the Church. Nothing is imposed on anyone, the Pope does not impose the obligation; the Pope does impose offering this possibility where the faithful request it.

If there is a conflict, because humanly speaking two groups can enter into conflict, the authority of the bishop -- as written in the "motu proprio" -- must intervene to avoid it, but without canceling the right that the Pope gave to the entire Church.

Newsweel and Fr Resse

2007-07-13T12:47:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Washington Post, coments mine]
As editor of the Catholic weekly magazine "America" (americamagazine.org) [Defcon Level 1], Rev. Thomas J. Reese promoted discussion on current issues facing the Catholic Church and the world. The "On Faith" panelist is author of Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church. He is frequently quoted as an expert [the above make one an expert?] on Catholic issues.

Ita Missa Est

Ignoring one's past is ignoring one's roots. [Bingo] But repeating old prayers and doctrinal formulas without understanding them is not the way to respect tradition.

Any religious community with roots in the past has traditions. The challenge is to discern what is at the core of this tradition and what is peripheral.

Latin is a classic case of a peripheral issue. [burn this heretic at the stake :p] The Last Supper was not in Latin. [And here we border on the heresy of reducing the liturgy to how it was first done] For the first four centuries the Eucharist was celebrated in Greek. Why did the church switch from Greek to Latin? [Organic development of the liturgy remember?] Because Latin was the language of the masses. [Err... the Latin adopted into the Liturgy was more stylised and not the colloquial kind.] This switch caused the first schism in Rome between the antipope traditionalist Hippolytus and the Latin modernizer Pope Calistus. [Err... but the Latinization did not begin from Rome, it began in North Africa and the whole process took centuries to teach Rome.] Thus the true tradition of the church was to have the Eucharist in the language of the people so that they could understand and participate. [Err... it still did not mean that street language was used.]

The real issue in Benedict XVI’s motu proprio is not Latin in the liturgy. Any priest can say the current Catholic liturgy in Latin. Nor is the issue the Tridentine or pre-Vatican II mass. Any priest, with the permission of his bishop, has been able to say the Tridentine Latin mass since 1984 when John Paul II issued his indult. [But now the Bishop is free from that burden]

The real issue is the power of local bishop to decide whether the Tridentine mass will be said in his diocese. [So the lens of politics to look at Ecclesial issues give a sharper image?] Under the indult of John Paul, the local bishop had the power to approve or not approve the use of the Tridentine mass in his diocese. Under that system, a priest or a group of people petitioned the bishop to allow them to use the Tridentine mass. [So empowering the grassroots is a bad thing?] He then investigated the situation and decided on pastoral grounds whether it was a good idea or not. [So the bottom up approach is bad and the top down is good?] He usually required the petitioners to state that they accepted the new liturgy and Vatican II as legitimate. Around 130 U.S. dioceses (about 70%), including most of the large ones, allowed the Tridentine mass under limited circumstances. [And the late Pope said generous application not limited application]

Some bishops, especially in France, said no because they judged that the petitioners rejected the reforms of Vatican II and were divisive in their dioceses. By allowing the use of the Tridentine mass without the local bishop’s permission, the pope is saying that he does not trust the pastoral judgment of the bishops. [No the Bishop still remain the moderator of the liturgy] Those who have been fighting the bishops over the Tridentine mass are celebrating this as a victory over the bishops. [Many of whom have been anything but pastoral]

Some in the Vatican [actually the Holy See rather], including Benedict, hope that allowing free use of the Tridentine mass will make possible reunion with Society of St. Pius X, the schismatic group started by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. [Still the reasons go far beyond this] The leaders of the group, however, have indicated that their rejection of Vatican II goes way beyond the vernacular liturgy.

Others in the Vatican hope that greater use of the Tridentine mass will undermine support for the Lefebvrite leaders and bring some of the society’s members back into union with the Catholic Church. Time will tell. [Speculation]

Benedict does not think allowing freer use to the Tridentine mass will be divisive. Let’s hope he is right, but pity the poor pastor who has a half dozen people in his parish requesting the old rite. [And being Pastoral means just attending to the needs of the majority?] Most priests are saying two or three masses on Sunday already, and only a few elderly priests know how to say the old mass properly. Luckily, the support for the new liturgy among the Catholic laity is overwhelming. [Oh so the Mass has to win the popularity contest?]

Some Catholics support the Tridentine mass [Now its Extraordinary Use of the Roman Rite] because they say it heightens the mystery of the Mass. The mystery of the Eucharist is not that it's in Latin. The mystery is the death and resurrection of Jesus that is being celebrated. To have the mysteriousness of Latin blocking people from seeing the true mystery is one of the reasons we went to English. [Oh so Latin was a blockage to Blessed Teresa of Calcutta while she was growing up?]

Some stories in the media expressed concern that the expansion of the use of the Tridentine by Benedict XVI would include the phrase "perfidious Jews" in the Good Friday liturgy. This is not the case since the 1962 version does not include this phrase. [Yes] It is the 1962 missal that was approved for limited use by John Paul II in his 1984 indult and by Benedict in his motu proprio. [No problem here]

The treatment of the Jews in the 1962 missal is not ideal. It prayed for the "conversion of the Jews."

For the conversion of the Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness.

It also prays for "heretics and schismatics."

The 1970 missal of Paul VI, which is used today, says:

Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.

Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The 1970 missal is far superior [superior is obscuring Catholic doctrine ;)] and in fact more traditional [but the prayer in the 1962 missal is expressed more traditionally] than the 1962 missal, which reflects the limited historical scholarship available in the time of Pius V. [And more recent scholarship demonstrates the opposite] It is not perfect and needs [a lot of actually] improvement, but the Vatican [Holy See] changes that are coming down the pike are going to make matters worse not better.

For example, the Vatican is insisting that the English translation be changed to make it more literal (word for word). [translating correctly is a bad thing?] In the not distant future, the people will be told to respond "And with your spirit" to "The Lord be with you" rather than "And also with you." This and other changes in the people's responses is going to cause chaos in parishes. [the sky is falling, the sky is falling :p] The English-speaking bishops fought this for a long time, but finally gave in. Pity the pastor who is going to have to explain this to his people, especially when he thinks it is a stupid idea. [Err... every single other language uses 'and with your spirit', English is the odd one out. 'And also with you' sounds plain stupid. Its a reference to St Paul's Epistles silly. Oh but the laity are just too stupid to read solid translations of Sacred Scripture.]

Ecumenism?

2007-07-12T13:06:00.000+08:00

Geneva/Moscow, Jul. 11, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Leading Protestant figures have criticized the new Vatican document affirming the central role of the Catholic Church, but the Russian Orthodox Church has welcomed the document as an "honest" statement that "shows how close or, on the contrary, how divided we are."

Rev. Setri Nyomi, the general secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, protested the Vatican statement in a letter to Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Rev. Nyomi said that the new Vatican statement, which says that Protestant groups are not "churches" in the proper sense, "makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with Reformed [Deformed is a more accurate term. Loss of Sacraments, Apostolic succession, Real Presence... :p] family and other families [The Church is the Bride of Christ not a harem ;)] of the Church."

The World Council of Churches (WCC) also expressed disagreement with the Vatican. In its own statement addressing the role of the Catholic Church, the WCC argued that the term "catholic" should be understood to mean "universal." [But the Catholic Church is the Universal Church.] In that sense, the WCC argued, "Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. [there only is one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church] Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it." [Umm... universe and not whole... good oxymoron]

The Russian Orthodox Church, however, welcomed the Vatican satement. "For an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side," said Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, the leading ecumenical official of the Moscow patriarchate.

Metropolitan Kirill observed that he saw "nothing new" doctrinally in the statement released on july 10 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He argued that "everything contained in the Catholic document rightfully applies to the Orthodox Church," since the Orthodox Church has preserved apostolic succession.

The Vatican document acknowledged that the Orthodox churches are sister churches with valid sacraments, but added that in the Orthodox world, "of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him, is not fully realized in history."

Psalmus 42 Comment: Seems like sticking to clear Dogma, Doctrine and Teaching is a far better approach than beating round the bush and watering things down. Prior to Vatican II, Protestants has mistaken views about the Catholic Church. After Vatican II, Protestants don't even know what the Catholic Church is. Lets face it, what Protestants believe, regardless of how much 'scholarship' is put in, just does not hold any water. In muddy waters, Protestants are comfortable, but when the real light shines forth, they freak out. On the other hand, our Orthodox Brethren are sitting up to listen. Ecumenism moves forth! :)

Coke Classic

2007-07-12T13:02:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]
The Coca Cola Company allows production of "Coca Cola Classic"
By Coca Cola News Service

ATLANTA (CNS)—In a long-awaited overture to disaffected soda traditionalists, the president of the Coca Cola Company allowed limited production of "Coca Cola Classic," the original formula soft drink which was recently replaced by New Coke.

The president said the Classic formula should be made available in to consumers who desire it. He said that while New Coke, introduced a few months ago, will remain the flagship product of the brand, Classic Coke should be considered "the extraordinary form of the Coca Cola product."

This reintroduction implies no failure of the New Coke production and marketing plan, but simply "two variations on the one flagship Coca Cola product." The president’s directive came July 7 in a four-page letter to bottlers titled "Introducing Coca Cola Classic." The old formula will begin appearing in bottles and cans—not in fountains—Sept. 14. An accompanying personal letter from the president dismissed fears that the decisions would foment divisions among Coke drinkers or be seen as a retreat from the New Coke campaign.

The president said New Coke would certainly remain the company’s predominant product. Drinking Coca Cola Classic presupposes a certain degree of sophistication and traditional preferences and "neither of these is found very often," he said. But the president expressed sympathy with consumers who are attached to the old Coke formula and uncomfortable with New Coke.

In the period since the introduction of New Coke, he said, excessive, Pepsi-like sweetness often led to "unfinished bottles and unsatisfactory mixes with rum and bourbon which were hard to bear.""I am speaking from experience, since I, too, lived through that period with all its hopes and confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary changes in the formula caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the old formula," he said.

The president noted that many older consumers have a long connection with the Classic formula. But in recent years, he said, it has been clearly demonstrated that young people are also attracted by the old formula.

By widening its availability, the president said, he hoped to make the new and old Coca Cola formulas "mutually enriching."

The old formula has been hoarded and bottled by small, out-of-the-way bottlers since shortly after the introduction of the new formula, but customers had to make special trips—often hundreds of miles and beg bottlers for it, who did not always consent.

...[T]he new policy did not explicitly state that those buying Coca Cola Classic were also expected to buy New Coke. The company said that crossover purchasers would be presumed, however.

He emphasized that although the new formula was designed to replace the old formula, the old formula was "never formally abandoned." Its restoration as an extraordinary product thus does not undermine the company’s decisions with respect to New Coke, he said.

"There is no contradiction between the two formulas. In the history of our company there is growth and progress, but no rupture," he said."What earlier generations held as a good product remains such, and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful," he said.

TANTUM AIR-GO

2007-07-12T12:57:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]
National airline for the Holy See…

TANTUM AIR-GO

"Ultramontane" was never like this!

* three cabins: first, business, and preferential option
* all seats in first class are The Comfy Chair
* unjust stewardesses
* MP6 on every longhaul flight; MBJ23 in first class
* airport lounge for our Golden Chalice members
* currency exchange: pray for the conversion of your money
* free headset and rosary
* your captain: Pontius Pilot (kidding!)
* connect to the "Passetto" at Fiumicino for quick ground transport into Vatican City
* direct flights from Boston and San Francisco
* first Catholic plane at Heathrow since Reformation
* service to China expected soon
* confessors available to help with your "baggage"
* emergency procedures include absolution
* Keep in mind that the nearest holy water font may be behind you.
* planes by Boeing; nobis quoque pick up Airibus
* Swiss Guards on every flight, halberds at the ready (we’ve never seen a hijacker who wanted to be the beheadee rather than the beheader)
* the one true airline!

Call Bonnie Voluntatis or Jenny Torre at EtCumSpirit 220.

Note: MP6 = Mass of Paul VI, MBJ32 = Mass of Blessed John XXIII ;)

Another Commentary on the Chittister Whine :p

2007-07-11T23:45:00.000+08:00

[Taken from V for Victory]
Now it's serious: the Pope has offended Sr. Joan Chittister. NOW what do we do? Maybe there's still time for the Holy Father to take back the Motu Proprio before the Patroness of Polyester Pantsuits holds her breath until she turns purple and passes out. Her outpourings on Rome's campaign to enforce the actual teachings of Vatican II are a classic backwards tribute to the Rule of St. Benedict: a perfect example of what happens to you when you vow to live by it, and then don't.

Here is Sister Joan's latest screed, with my comments, as always, in red.

* * *

It used to be that if you asked a question about the Catholic church, you got very straightforward answers. No, we did not eat meat on Friday. [Don't Benedictines still abstain from meat on Fridays?] Yes, we had to go to church every Sunday. [We still do.]

Not any more.

In fact, the answers are getting more confusing all the time [-- though this of course is not the fault of infiltrators like Sister Joan]. Consider the question of how the newly revised Roman Missal is better than the last, for instance.

They tell us now [NOW???] that Mass texts -- including even hymns -- may not include feminine references to God. And this in a church that has routinely addressed God as Key of David, Door of life, wind, fire, light and dove. God who is also, they tell us, "pure spirit" can never, ever, be seen as 'mother.' [Don't overdo it, Sister. Sit down; put your feet up; maybe a glass of water? Let this be a lesson to you: leave argumentation to the professionals. You really shouldn't try this at home.] Are we to think, then, that even hinting at the notion that the image of God includes the image of women as well as the image of men, as God in Genesis says it does, is dangerous to the faith? Antithetical to the faith? Heresy? [Don't sweat it, Sister: whatever church you've been going to that worships Goddess instead of God doesn't care what Rome has to say about liturgical texts anyway.]

Or, too, we learned that the words of the consecration itself would soon be edited to correct the notion that Jesus came to save "all" -- as we had been taught in the past -- to the idea that Jesus came to save "many." [If only Jesus had known better, He wouldn't have said "many" at the Last Supper, as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.] The theological implications of changing from "all" to "many" boggles the mind[, particularly the implication that, having free will, we can choose to reject salvation, which is what "many" implies]. Who is it that Jesus did not come to save?

Does such a statement imply again that "only Catholics go to heaven?" And, if read like that by others, is this some kind of subtle retraction of the whole ecumenical movement? [If it's a rejection of the sort of ecumenism that requires Catholics to compromise on the faith, I for one am all for it.]

Now, this week, we got the word that the pope himself, contrary to the advice and concerns of the world's bishops, has restored the Tridentine Latin Rite[, which was never abrogated]. It is being done, the pope explains, to make reconciliation easier with conservative groups[, even though these nutjob fanatical kooks that are raining on your We Are Church parade really deserve to be written off, right, Sister?].

But it does not, at the same time, make reconciliation easier with women, who are now pointedly left out of the Eucharistic celebration entirely [the Blessed Mother doesn't count], certainly in its God-language, even in its pronouns[, which Sister is so busy counting and parsing that she doesn't have any time left for donning a habit, praying the Divine Office, or reading Scripture]. Nor does it seem to care [magical thinking extends to personifying the Motu Proprio -- or does "it" refer to the Holy Father?] about reconciliation with Jews who find themselves in the Tridentine Good Friday rite again as "blind" and objects of conversion[; after all, when someone needs conversion, it's much more compassionate to stop caring whether they go to Hell]. It's difficult not to wonder if reconciliation is really what it's all about[, particularly when you've given the Motu Proprio as careless a reading as Sister evidently has].

What's more, where, in the intervening years, bishops had to give permission for the celebration of Tridentine masses in the local diocese, the new document requires only that the rite be provided at the request of the laity[, who are too stupid to be entrusted with the right to ask for the preconciliar forms, and to have access to the rich patrimony that so many have been denied all these years].

But why the concerns? If some people prefer a Latin mass to an English mass, why not have it? [That's just what the Pope thinks. And by the way, we capitalize the word "Mass."]

The answer depends on what you think the Mass has to do with articulating the essence of the Christian faith. [After all, in the World According to Sister Joan, it has very little to do with worshiping God.]

The Latin Mass, for instance, in which the priest celebrates the Eucharist with his back to the people, in a foreign language -- much of it said silently or at best whispered -- makes the congregation, the laity, observers of the rite rather than participants in it. [A point of view typical of someone so shallow as to worship at the altar of appearances and belittle and discount the interior life, where the real action happens to be going on.]

The celebrant becomes the focal point of the process, the special human being, the one for whom God is a kind of private preserve. [If you think this is such a bad thing, then how come you want women to be priests?]

The symbology of a lone celebrant, removed from and independent of the congregation, is clear [only to a moron]: ordinary people have no access to God. They are entirely dependent on a special caste of males to contact God for them[ -- everyone knows a special caste of females to be the hoi polloi's sole intermediaries with God is infinitely preferable]. They are "not worthy," to receive the host, or as the liturgy says now, even to have Jesus "come under my roof." [No, we are NOT worthy. The only reason we sinners dare to approach the Host -- another word that needs to be capitalized -- is because we are commanded to do so.]

The Eucharist in such a setting is certainly not a celebration of the entire community. It is instead a priestly act, a private devotion of both priest and people, which requires for its integrity three "principal parts" alone -- the offertory, the consecration and the communion. [How terrible to waste all that time worshiping God, when we could be worshiping ourselves!] The Liturgy of the Word -- the instruction in what it means to live a Gospel life -- is, in the Tridentine Rite, at best, a minor element. [Sister lies so much, why should we start believing her now?]

In the Latin mass, the sense of mystery -- of mystique -- the incantation of "heavenly" rather than "vulgar" language in both prayer and music, underscores a theology of transcendence. It lifts a person out of the humdrum, the dusty, the noisy, the crowded chaos of normal life to some other world. It reminds us of the world to come -- beautiful, mystifying, hierarchical, perfumed -- and makes this one distant. It takes us beyond the present, enables us, if only for a while, to "slip the surly bonds of earth" for a world more mystical than mundane. [And the problem is...?]

It privatizes the spiritual life. The Tridentine Mass is a God-and-I liturgy. [Too stupid for comment.]

The Vatican II liturgy, on the other hand, steeps a person in community, in social concern, in the hard, cold, clear reality of the present. The people and priest pray the Mass together, in common language, with a common theme. They interact with one another. They sing "a new church into being,' non-sexist, inclusive, centered together in the Jesus who walked the dusty roads of Galilee curing the sick, raising the dead, talking to women and inviting the Christian community to do the same. [They prefer wallowing in the mud with Sister Joan to lifting their hearts to heaven.]

The Vatican II liturgy grapples with life from the point of view of the distance between life as we know it and life as the gospel defines it for us. It plunges itself into the sanctifying challenges of dailiness. [Yes, here is the key to sanctity: lower your standards to the point where they're already met.]

The Vatican II liturgy carries within it a theology of transformation. It does not seek to create on earth a bit of heaven [we sure would hate to see that]; it does set out to remind us all of the heaven we seek[, even though, as stated above, it's supposed to keep us firmly rooted in our sordid earthly existence.] It does not attempt to transcend the present. It does seek to transform it. [And these are the problems with Sister Joan's brand of "liturgy."] It creates community out of isolates in an isolating society. [Huh???]

There is a power and a beauty in both liturgical traditions, of course[, even though Sister just got done arguing that beauty is irrelevant at best, and a distraction at worst, proving that heresy really does lower your IQ]. No doubt they both need a bit of the other. Eucharist after all is meant to be both transcendent and transformative. But make no mistake: In their fundamental messages, they present us with more than two different styles of music or two different languages or two different sets of liturgical norms. They present us with two different churches. [Thus Pope Benedict is a liar when he says that the extraordinary form and the ordinary form are "two usages of the one Roman rite."]

The choice between these two different liturgies bring the church to a new crossroads, one more open, more ecumenical, more communal, more earthbound than the other. The question is which one of them is more likely to create the world Jesus models and of which we dream. [And here we all were, misguidedly thinking the purpose of the Mass was to worship God, and to re-present the Sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner on the altar.]

There are many more questions ahead of us as a result of this new turn in the liturgical road than simply the effect of such a decree on parish architecture, seminary education, music styles, language acquisition and multiple Mass schedules[, all of which the faithful are too stupid to cope with].

The theological questions that lurk under the incense and are obscured by the language are far more serious than that. They're about what's really good for the church -- ecumenism or ecclesiastical ghettoism, altars and altar rails, mystique or mystery, incarnation as well as divinity, community or private spirituality[, the ersatz feminist "spirituality" of the Sister Joans of the world or the true Faith as handed down by the Apostles and their successors, the ravings of heretics or the teachings of Peter's Successor]?

From where I stand, it seems obvious that the Fathers of Vatican Council II knew the implications of the two different Eucharistic styles then and bishops around the world know it still. [That's because Sister has never read the actual teachings of Vatican II, which plainly stipulated that the preconciliar rites were to be preserved and nurtured, not suppressed.] But their concerns have been ignored. They don't have much to do with it anymore. Now it's up to the laity to decide which church they really want -- and why. [See, it's only the Golden Age of the Laity Who Dissent from the Magisterium; those who yearn for authentic Catholicism can go to Hell.] Which we choose may well determine the very nature of the church for years to come.

* * *

Sister Joan Chittister has forsaken her calling as a chosen soul, and has become a liar, a cheat, and a heretic desperately in need of (a) public refutation, and (b) prayers for conversion. Instead of being of real use to the Church and to the world, she prefers to gnaw her petty grievances, taking offense where none is intended and leading such of the faithful astray as are still capable of taking her seriously. The church of her dreams is the Communist Bloc of Christendom.

And like the political Communist Bloc, it too is destined for the ash heap of history.

More Whining Regarding Summorum Pontificum

2007-07-11T15:40:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]
Published on National Catholic Reporter Conversation Cafe
Coming soon to a church near you

By Joan Chittister
Created Jul 10 2007

It used to be that if you asked a question about the Catholic church, you got very straightforward answers. No, we did not eat meat on Friday. Yes, we had to go to church every Sunday. [Before legions of the discontinuity folks really snatched the reins of power in schools, chanceries, universities, seminaries, convents….]

They tell us now that Mass texts—including even hymns—may not include feminine references to God. And this in a church that has routinely addressed God as Key of David, Door of life, wind, fire, light and dove. God who is also, they tell us, "pure spirit" can never, ever, be seen as ‘mother.’ [sniff] Are we to think, then, that even hinting at the notion that the image of God includes the image of women as well as the image of men, as God in Genesis says it does, is dangerous to the faith? Antithetical to the faith? Heresy? [If the shoe…. well….]

Or, too, we learned that the words of the consecration itself would soon be edited to correct the notion that Jesus came to save "all" [Nooooooo… that is not what the correct translation "pro multis".] —as we had been taught in the past—to the idea [the FACT] that Jesus came to save "many." The theological implications of changing from "all" to "many" boggles the mind. Who is it that Jesus did not come to save? [This is just tendentious.]

Does such a statement imply again that "only Catholics go to heaven?" And, if read like that by others, is this some kind of subtle retraction of the whole ecumenical movement?

Now, this week, we got the word that the pope himself, contrary to the advice and concerns of the world’s bishops, [First, the Pope is not subject to the bishops. Second, the bishops are to be in union with Peter. Third, Peter’s role is to strengthen the brethren and govern the Church entrusted in the first place to him. Fourth, the Pope DID consult... and consult, and consult, and consult. And do you think he was just twiddling his thumbs without anything to do before he became Pope?] has restored the Tridentine Latin Rite. [Noooo….. even a fast reading of the MP shows that the older, extraordinary form of the Roman Rite had never been abrogated.] It is being done, the pope explains, to make reconciliation easier with conservative groups. [Noooo…. it doesn’t stop there. That is unjust. These provisions are for THREE, groups, those who are in questionable unity or broken with the Church (which subsists in its fullness in the Catholic Church), those who were wounded by the changes decades past, and those who have discovered the older ways and want them now. The writer was lacking in justice not to give the Pope’s document a fair reading. But here at WDTPRS we try to be just. If you want peace, work for justice, after all. This is a social-justice oriented blog, or rather an ad orientem justly social blog… well… you get it.]

But it does not, at the same time, make reconciliation easier with women, [HUH??? Whenever I go to a approved parish or chapel to celebrate the older use of Holy Mass (something the writer of this article will never do in any use) I always see lots of women. Women everywhere. Big women, old women, little women, young women, girls, and they are pretty happy to be there, too. You can tell by the way their chapel veils hang.] who are now pointedly left out of the Eucharistic celebration entirely, certainly in its God-language, even in its pronouns. [Nooooo….left out especially in its pronouns, Sister, let’s be precise.] Nor does it seem to care about reconciliation with Jews who find themselves in the Tridentine Good Friday rite again as "blind" and objects of conversion. It’s difficult not to wonder if reconciliation is really what it’s all about. [Well… it ain’t about reconciliation on your terms, Sister, I can tell you that. And the provisions for the use of the extraordinary right really aren’t about the Jews at all. They don’t figure in the equation. And, you know what? That’s okay. Moreover, the writer is not just wrong, but also unjust. True Catholics don’t treat other people as "objects". People, made in God’s image and likeness, are the dignified subjects of their own actions. That dignity cannot be violated. No one is forced to be a Catholic or to listen to us. But, darn it, we have a right to be Catholic, and have our own language, and symbols, and prayers. And if anyone is interested in talking, we’ll talk. But in the CATHOLIC Church, we are not going to betray Jesus Christ and compromise our beliefs for the sake of "buonismo".]

What’s more, where, in the intervening years, bishops had to give permission for the celebration of Tridentine masses in the local diocese, the new document requires only that the rite be provided at the request of the laity. [Right. This empowers the laity. It empowers WOMEN, come to think of it LAY WOMEN! And SISTERS! Sisters can now boss priests around and make them say the old Mass!]

But why the concerns? If some people prefer a Latin mass [I think the writer means the older form of Mass] to an English mass, why not have it?

The answer depends on what you think the Mass has to do with articulating the essence of the Christian faith.

The Latin Mass,[I think the writer means the older form of Mass] for instance, in which the priest celebrates the Eucharist with his back to the people, [kaCHING! Say da magic woid, winnahunnud dahlahs!] in a foreign language—much of it said silently or at best whispered [much of it said very much out loud]—makes the congregation, the laity, observers of the rite rather than participants in it. [I think we have covered what the Church really means by "active participation" here so often readers can recite it in their sleep. So, let’s just back away from this embarassing cliche and move on.]

The celebrant becomes the focal point of the process, the special human being, the one for whom God is a kind of private preserve. [Well…. yah… that’s about right. When the priest is at the altar, he IS special. He is alter Christus. That, Sister, is special!]

The symbology of a lone celebrant, [cue Clint Eastwood music….] removed from and independent of the congregation, [a clear whistled melody…. the distant howl of a wolf and… what’s that hear? Gunfire?!] is clear: ordinary people have no access to God. They are entirely dependent on a special caste of males to contact God for them. [B as in B. S as in S.] They are "not worthy," to receive the host, or as the liturgy says now, even to have Jesus "come under my roof." [Ehem…. one of those things the lone male priest is saying silently up there at the altar Sister can’t approach is "Domine, non sum dignus… Domine, non sum dignus… Domine, non sum dignus…" before anyone else says it. And, NEWS FLASH: No one is worthy to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist. We approach Him because He invitingly commands it and we, in hope that He will crown His own merits in us, extends to us now this great pledge of future glory. We come with humility, not a sense of our own "worth". His Holiness even before his election wrote and warned eloquently about an unbridled sense of "self-sufficiency" in the Church.]

The Eucharist in such a setting is certainly not a celebration of the entire community. It is instead a priestly act, a private devotion of both priest and people, which requires for its integrity three "principal parts" alone—the offertory, the consecration and the communion. The Liturgy of the Word—the instruction in what it means to live a Gospel life—is, in the Tridentine Rite, at best, a minor element. [Riiiighhhht…. so… show me that list of great saints raised up solely on the newer form of Mass…. oppps…. where are they? It look like all these saints we so venerate were nourished on a Mass that had little to do with the Gospel life. I guess the Chinese and Spanish martyrs, Teresa of Calcutta, Damien of Molochai, Catherine of Siena, Bakhita, and well… others somehow just stumbled onto their…. thing… by chance.]

In the Latin mass, the sense of mystery—of mystique—the incantation of "heavenly" rather than "vulgar" language in both prayer and music, underscores a theology of transcendence. It lifts a person out of the humdrum, the dusty, the noisy, the crowded chaos of normal life to some other world. It reminds us of the world to come—beautiful, mystifying, hierarchical, perfumed—and makes this one distant. It takes us beyond the present, enables us, if only for a while, to "slip the surly bonds of earth" for a world more mystical than mundane. [So far so good.]

It privatizes the spiritual life. The Tridentine Mass is a God-and-I liturgy. [Riiiight…. that is why St. John of God and Camillus of Lellis, the aforementioned Teresa of Calcutta founded hospitals and houses for the desperate, why saintly mother foundresses built schools and shelters and orphanages, why holy missionaries left everything to go to the ends of the earth. This is why millions of quiet lay people saved and sacrificed to build their churches and support women religious (before they needed pants suits and hairdoos) and give to the poor and to missions. In the end, everyone of them, if you were to ask them after Mass why they did those things they would say without hesitation…. "It’s all about me and Jesus". That’s right! That’s sure what they would tell you.]

The Vatican II liturgy, on the other hand, steeps a person in community, in social concern, in the hard, cold, clear reality of the present. [Especially when those out of tune guitars start a strummin’ and the shouting into the microphone over the bongos begins…. hard, cold reality of the present… for an hour or so that seems never to end.] The people and priest pray the Mass together, in common language, with a common theme. They interact with one another. They sing "a new church into being,’ non-sexist, inclusive, centered together [BLEEEEEAAAAACHHH .... ‘scuse me o{]8¬{ sorry… please go on… ] in the Jesus who walked the dusty roads of Galilee curing the sick, raising the dead, talking to women and inviting the Christian community to do the same.

The Vatican II liturgy grapples with life from the point of view of the distance between life as we know it and life as the gospel defines it for us. It plunges itself into the sanctifying challenges of dailiness. [Wow… no one had EVER thought of that before 1963!]

The Vatican II liturgy carries within it a theology of transformation. It does not seek to create on earth a bit of heaven; it does set out to remind us all of the heaven we seek. It does not attempt to transcend the present. It does seek to transform it. It creates community out of isolates in an isolating society. [Ehem…. to me… that sounds like hell. That sound like exactly the OPPOSITE of what Vatican II asks of the baptized living in the world. Still… let’s all sing!

Not in the dark of buildings confining,
not in some heaven, light years away,
but here in this place, the new light is shining;
now is the Kingdom, now is the day.
Gather us in – and ….aaaaaaaand…..

BLEEEEEAAAAACHHH .... sorry… sorry again…]

There is a power and a beauty in both liturgical traditions, of course. No doubt they both need a bit of the other. [After all that, you make this admission?] [The] Eucharist after all is meant to be both transcendent and transformative. But make no mistake: In their fundamental messages, they present us with more than two different styles of music or two different languages or two different sets of liturgical norms. [Which is a pretty good start, thank you very much.] They present us with two different churches. [B as in B. S as in S.]

The choice between these two different liturgies bring the church to a new crossroads, one more open, more ecumenical, more communal, more earthbound than the other. The question is which one of them is more likely to create the world Jesus models and of which we dream. [While those who follow followed the heremeutic of rupture and "dreamed", in the bad old day Catholics WORKED and created the infrastructure the dreamers are still living off of. For people like this, who can see things only in blacks and whites without any flexibility and nuance, who are incapable of taking what is good from the last, say four decades, and then make corrections, I bet all of this really is pretty scary. We should be nicer…. .... .... later maybe… ]

There are many more questions ahead of us as a result of this new turn in the liturgical road than simply the effect of such a decree on parish architecture, seminary education, music styles, language acquisition and multiple Mass schedules. [I’ll settle for those.]

The theological questions that lurk under the incense and are obscured by the language are far more serious than that. They’re about what’s really good for the church—ecumenism or ecclesiastical ghettoism, [Always the drama… always with the drama.] altars and altar rails, [yeppp….. pretty scary] mystique or mystery, incarnation as well as divinity, community or private spirituality?

From where I stand, it seems obvious that the Fathers [and Mothers] of Vatican Council II knew the implications of the two different Eucharistic styles then and bishops around the world know it still. [And that is why the Fathers … and Mothers… of the Council mandated only VERY FEW changes to Holy Mass. Read the documents.] But their concerns have been ignored. They don’t have much to do with it anymore. Now it’s up to the laity to decide which church they really want—and why. Which we choose may well determine the very nature of the church for years to come.

More Media Nonsense on Summorum Pontificum

2007-07-11T10:09:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]
Here is a gem from the Boston Globe. The author of this Op-Ed piece is Frank K. Flinn, adjunct professor of religious studies at Washington University in St. Louis, is author of "Encyclopedia of Catholicism." This fellow is heavily into studying cults. In his own bio, Flinn says: "From 1958 to 1964 I was a member of the Order of Friars Minor… I am a practicing Roman Catholic at All Saints Church, University City, Missouri".

The Boston Globe

Concilium Vaticanum IIum, vale!

By Frank K. Flinn | July 10, 2007

CATHOLICS AROUND the world should now have no illusions. Pope Benedict XVI’s recent decision to encourage [permit] wider use of the traditional Tridentine Mass in Latin is the latest move in his long campaign to undo liberal reforms in church practices popular with [some] Catholics since the 1960s.

The move may well trigger liturgical schisms in dioceses throughout the world. [And frogs will fall from the skies. Always with the drama! Sheesh!]

The form of the Mass was promulgated by Pope Paul V in the Roman Missal in 1570. In this rite the priest stands on an elevated altar, [whereas in many newer arrangments in churches microphoned priests grin at congregations from an elevated throne more splendid than Augustine Caesar ever had.] facing away from the people and mumbling [ka CHING! "Say da magic woid! Winnahundred dahlahs! Is there any description more cliche than this?] most sacred parts of the liturgy in Latin.

The Tridentine Mass lasted until the new form promulgated in 1969 by Pope Paul VI at Vatican Council II (1962-65). [Okay, so Paul VI promulgated the Missal in 1969, but that as "at" the Council which had ended four years before…. got it!] While drawing on some of the most ancient Christian forms of worship, the new Eucharist was translated into local languages. The priest now faced the congregation. [Did he still mumble? I bet not!] Around the world liturgical music expanded to include gospel music, African chants and drumming, Mexican mariachi bands, folk music, and even pop rhythms. [grooooovy!] Immediately conservative Catholics attacked the new rite, but Paul VI warned that the gospel would be lost to the modern world if it were not addressed to people in their language and their customs. [Ummmm…. he did? What did he write, precisely? That wasn’t in the same speech where he talked about the "smoke of Satan" entering the Church through some crack… I know it wasn’t then. I know he didn’t talk about that in humane vitae... which surely is to be defended as fiercely as the Novus Ordo is by progressivists. Hmmm…. I wonder where Paul VI wrote that.]

Criticism continued unabated by a traditionalist minority. [And an non-traditionalist, if you consider many people who simply wanted the Novus Ordo without abuses and with decent, appropriate sacred music and architecture, etc.] In 1988 former French Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre [spelling!] led a small minority of Catholics into schism over what he and his followers labeled the heretical "Mass of Paul VI." The Lefebvrists not only rejected the new liturgy, they rejected key doctrines of Vatican II on ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality. Collegiality was the central ecclesiastical concept that shaped Vatican II. The depth of the traditionalists’ hatred of Vatican II teachings was and remains astounding. [This deep analysis does not, however, consider what their reasons were for those views.]

On the other edge of the church, progressives wanted to advance the openings [notice the spin] begun at Vatican II, not only in the liturgy but also in ecumenism, lay involvement, Christian social action (liberation theology, feminism, ecology), and ethical theory (priestly celibacy, birth control). Paul VI started to apply the brakes, but Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, his new prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , went in for a whole new brake job. [If we are going to use the car analogy, who would say that having brakes is a bad thing? I like my brakes when I am heading for the edge of the cliff.]

They set out to thwart the progressive [notice the spin] side of the church. In the 1980s they silenced the liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, removed Swiss Hans Küng and American Charles Curran from their teaching posts, and unscrupulously [Can you believe this?] oversaw the unlawful excommunication of the Indian Tissa Balasuriya [More about what Fr. Balasuriya taught, below. And he taught it to others. I once lived with an Indian priest student of Balasuriya and he held much of the heresy he had been taught]. (That act was reversed.) Just this year the pope censured Salvadoran Jesuit liberation theologian Jon Sobrino by using the old Vatican tactic of stringing together quotations out of context. [This is a simplistic dodge of the left. It doesn’t matter that some statement is taken out of context, if it is straight forward heresy. The only way taking something out of context would be problematic in this case is if a negation was improperly excised. But if a guy teaches or writes soemthing that is against the Church’s teaching, then what difference does it make how much context you put around the fundamental position?]

In contrast, the papacy remained inexplicably lenient toward the schismatic Lefebvrists despite the scorn they continued to heap in the direction of the Vatican itself. [This is obtuse. Archbishop Lefebvre was EXCOMMUNICATED. That doesn’t sound lenient to me. What does this lefty want the Vatican ot do? Use the rack on conservatives but give milk and cookies to heretics? Lefebvre wasn’t a heretic. He might have been a schismatic, might have been, in taht he refused submission to the Roman Pontiff. But he didn’t deny dogmas of the faith as Balasuriya and others have. Balasuriya was RECONCILED when he abjured his errors. Archbp. Lefebvre died excommunicated. The Holy See worked with Balasuriya and ALL the other questionable theologians in processes lasting for YEARS. Do conservatives not deserve the same justice?] Indeed, in the 1980s Cardinal Ratzinger gave them free ammunition. In the preface to a liturgical treatise he accused modern Masses of being faddish "showpieces" and "fabrications." [Has anyone shown this writer video clips from the Masses, say, in L.A. for the annual conference?] He went on to praise the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Eucharist as exemplars of an "eternal liturgy." [Okay… so would being anti-Eastern or anti-Orthodox be helpful in some way?] One can detect a Eurocentric prejudice in his remarks. [Has this thoroughly clueless writer read Pope Benedict’s addresses when he went to Turkey or when he has received Orthodox figures? How about Ratzinger’s liturgical writings?]

The pope has not been evenhanded in his dealings with the many branches of the Catholic church. He has simply capitulated to the Lefebvrists, who continue to look down contemptuously on average Catholic parishioners who like to worship in their own tongue and see their priest face-to-face. The appeal to an "eternal liturgy" is false. [Who has weight here…. Frank Flinn of the Boston Globe or Joseph Ratzinger?] The liturgies of the earliest churches were both multiform and multilingual within the first generation going from Aramaic to Greek and Syriac in short order. The earliest known church, recently excavated at Megiddo in Israel, has the altar not elevated and apart but at the very center of the worshiping community. A true traditionalist would gladly embrace the many languages and cultures of the world as did the early church. [Obtuse does not beginning to cover this man’s approach.]

Why do I say farewell to Vatican II? [Always with the drama…] One of the roots of that council was the liturgical movement that preceded it by half a century. [Of which His Holiness is deeply aware and which he supported and IS supporting now. This is Benedict’s hermeneutic of CONTINUITY" not the rupture being thrust down the readers throat by Flinn.] The liturgical reformers were convinced that the liturgy was of, by, and for the whole people of God, clergy, and lay alike. The very word liturgia in Greek means "the work of the people." This notion embodies at its fullest the principle of collegiality, [HUH!?? It doesn’t embody the confusion of roles and diversity this guy suggests!] the key theological idea that shaped Vatican II. The Tridentine Mass is the work of the priest. [Not if you understand what true "active participation means". He doesn’t. In the older Mass as in the newer form the priest said "Pray brethren that MY SACRIFICE AND YOURS may be acceptable to God the Almighty Father. "He meant it then and means it now no less than before.] By turning back the liturgical clock [and the cliches just keep rolling in] not to the creative multiplicity [good grief] of the early Christian communities but to the heyday of the Inquisition and papal monarchism at Trent, [How we love the smell of thumbscrews in the morning.] Pope Benedict XVI is abandoning the principle of collegiality [Which is why he had a seemingly endless process of consultation every time in the CDF there was a problem with a theologian, or why he consulted and consulted and consulted again before this Motu Proprio.] that embraces all bishops, all priests, all deacons, and all lay people as the worshiping community of the beloved faithful. [It’s like drowning in syrup.] That says to Vatican II, "Farewell!"

Summorum Pontificum & the Media Spin

2007-07-11T09:50:00.000+08:00

As usual hilarious comments by Fr Z

[Taken from WDTPRS]
Catholics fear [I don’t, do you?] Pope’s revival of traditional ways
By Peter Popham in Rome
Published: 10 July 2007

Pope Benedict XVI faces uproar [The Independent hopes] among liberal Catholics amid signs that he is trying to turn back the clock on an era of modernisation and reform. [The chestnuts are roasting again, friends!]

From today, the Church wakes up to a new set of rules [Would that "wake up" were true! The "new rules" part, however, is not true. Virtually everything in the MP could already have been established by any diocesan bishop. He could have given every priest in his diocese faculties to use all the older books, he himself could use all the books, he could establish parishes, religious communities, etc. etc.] regarding the way in which the Mass may be celebrated. For the first time since 1962 the Tridentine Mass, the form of the service always said in Latin, will be permitted. [Wrong wrong wrong. The MP itself, which the reporter might have read first, states clearly that permission had already been granted in 1986 and explanded in 1988.]

It is the Pope’s personal effort to heal a rift created when the followers of French Archbishop Lefèbvre rebelled, and insisted on continuing the use the Mass introduced at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

But even before the publication of the new rules the intensity of opposition has shaken the Church. One bishop interviewed by La Repubblica said the day the Pope’s letter was published confirming the reform was "the saddest day of my life". [yawn]

The Pope has confirmed that the existing form of the Mass, dating from the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, [not precisely, but let that pass] will continue to be the standard one, said in the language of the local congregation. [When not said in the official language, Latin.]

But many liberal Catholics see the return of a Mass which, in the form in which it was used until 1962, stigmatised "heretics", "schismatics" [Not nice things to be, really.] and Jews ["The Mass" does not "stigmatize" Jews. Not even the Good Friday prayers do that: they ask what we pray for ouselves: take the veil of blindness from our hearts so that we may be ever more disciples of Christ. It is fair for Catholics to want people to be Catholics.] and which presented the Catholic Church as the only true version of the faith, as a reckless step backwards. [NOT BAKWARD: the Church has always taught this. This is always cutting edge teaching.]

And when they review the changes Benedict has brought to the papal wardrobe, they see a pattern. [Shallow] Ever since his installation in April 2005, the German Pope has been speeding back to the future.

The magnificent papal wardrobe has been steadily modified since Vatican II. Pope Paul VI symbolically laid his splendid tiara on the altar of St Peter’s at the end of the council; it was sold and the proceeds donated to charity. Benedict has yet to buy it back, but he has repeatedly stunned Vaticanologists with the variety of archaic hats, capes and other adornments he chooses to sport.

In his first winter as Pope he donned the snug, Santa Claus-like "camauro" hat, red velvet with a border of white ermine, which had not been worn since John XXIII, who died in 1963. He also affected the "galero", a cowboy-like number in red, and the "greca", the ankle-length cashmere overcoat last worn by Pope Pius XII. He has also moved to restore some of the dignity of the Pope sacrificed by his predecessors in the interests of humility and conciliation. Benedict has been photographed seated in the little-used golden throne in the Vatican’s Sala Paolina, where Pius XII used to receive important visitors on their knees. [This is simply too daft to be believed.]

Another Present from the Holy See

2007-07-10T21:55:00.000+08:00

[http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html, emphasis mine]
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
"Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church"

Introduction

The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS

First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council[1]. Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation"[3]. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention[4].

Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community"[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him"[7].

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?

Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"[11].

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"[12].

Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"[13], they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches[15].

"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"[16]. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches[17].

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history[18].

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense[20].

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

[1] JOHN XXIII, Address of 11 October 1962: "…The Council…wishes to transmit Catholic doctrine, whole and entire, without alteration or deviation…But in the circumstances of our times it is necessary that Christian doctrine in its entirety, and with nothing taken away from it, is accepted with renewed enthusiasm, and serene and tranquil adherence… it is necessary that the very same doctrine be understood more widely and more profoundly as all those who sincerely adhere to the Christian, Catholic and Apostolic faith strongly desire …it is necessary that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which is owed the obedience of faith, be explored and expounded in the manner required by our times. The deposit of faith itself and the truths contained in our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are annunciated is another, provided that the same fundamental sense and meaning is maintained" : AAS 54 [1962] 791-792.

[2] Cf. PAUL VI, Address of 29 September 1963: AAS 55 [1963] 847-852.

[3] PAUL VI, Address of 21 November 1964: AAS 56 [1964] 1009-1010.

[4] The Council wished to express the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. This is clear from the discussions on the decree Unitatis redintegratio. The Schema of the Decree was proposed on the floor of the Council on 23.9.1964 with a Relatio (Act Syn III/II 296-344). The Secretariat for the Unity of Christians responded on 10.11.1964 to the suggestions sent by Bishops in the months that followed (Act Syn III/VII 11-49). Herewith are quoted four texts from this Expensio modorum concerning this first response.

A) [In Nr. 1 (Prooemium) Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 296, 3-6]

"Pag. 5, lin. 3-6: Videtur etiam Ecclesiam catholicam inter illas Communiones comprehendi, quod falsum esset.

R(espondetur): Hic tantum factum, prout ab omnibus conspicitur, describendum est. Postea clare affirmatur solam Ecclesiam catholicam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi" (Act Syn III/VII 12).

B) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 297-301]

"4 - Expressius dicatur unam solam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi; hanc esse Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam; omnes debere inquirere, ut eam cognoscant et ingrediantur ad salutem obtinendam...

R(espondetur): In toto textu sufficienter effertur, quod postulatur. Ex altera parte non est tacendum etiam in aliis communitatibus christianis inveniri veritates revelatas et elementa ecclesialia"(Act Syn III/VII 15). Cf. also ibid pt. 5.

C) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 296s]

"5 - Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam...

R(espondetur): Textus supponit doctrinam in constitutione ‘De Ecclesia’ expositam, ut pag. 5, lin. 24-25 affirmatur" (Act Syn III/VII 15). Thus the commission whose task it was to evaluate the responses to the Decree Unitatis redintegratio clearly expressed the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and its unicity, and understood this doctrine to be founded in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium.

D) [In Nr. 2 Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 297s]

"Pag. 6, lin. 1- 24: Clarius exprimatur unicitas Ecclesiae. Non sufficit inculcare, ut in textu fit, unitatem Ecclesiae.

R(espondetur): a) Ex toto textu clare apparet identificatio Ecclesiae Christi cum Ecclesia catholica, quamvis, ut oportet, efferantur elementa ecclesialia aliarum communitatum".

"Pag. 7, lin. 5: Ecclesia a successoribus Apostolorum cum Petri successore capite gubernata (cf. novum textum ad pag. 6, lin.33-34) explicite dicitur ‘unicus Dei grex’ et lin. 13 ‘una et unica Dei Ecclesia’ " (Act Syn III/VII).

The two expressions quoted are those of Unitatis redintegratio 2.5 e 3.1.

[5] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.1.

[6] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.2; 3.4; 3.5; 4.6.

[7] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen gentium, 8.2.

[8] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.1: AAS 65 [1973] 397; Declaration Dominus Iesus, 16.3: AAS 92 [2000-II] 757-758; Notification on the Book of Leonardo Boff, OFM, "Church: Charism and Power": AAS 77 [1985] 758-759.

[9] Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928.

[10] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.

[11] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.

[12] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4.

[13] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.3; cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, 17.2: AAS, 85 [1993-II] 848.

[14] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1.

[15] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1; JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 56 f: AAS 87 [1995-II] 954 ff.

[16] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.1.

[17] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, 17.3: AAS 85 [1993-II] 849.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.3.

[20] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 17.2: AAS 92 [2000-II] 758.

atholic Bishops Conference of the Philippine (CBCP) welcomes Summorum Pontificum

2007-07-10T20:07:00.000+08:00

[Taken from GMANews.TV, comments mine]
The influential Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) welcomed on Monday Pope Benedict XVI's decree allowing the return of the Latin Mass. [Hurray!]

CBCP president Angel Lagdameo, in a statement, said the permission by the Pope will allow the two forms of the mass - Latin and "new" - will be a factor for unity in the Church. [Yes]

"The two forms will have their way of leading the faithful to the true worship of God in prayer and liturgy; and may even be a factor for unity in the Church," he said. [Which the Holy Father says]

He said the Pope's permission means the "Tridentine" Mass in Latin and in accordance with the formula of the Council of Trent, with the celebrant's back to the faithful may be celebrated as if it were never forbidden. [The Classical Use of the Roman Rite dates to way before the Council of Trent]

The Latin mass, approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962, was replaced with the "new" mass approved by Pope Paul VI in 1970 after Vatican II.

Lagdameo noted the "new" mass became more popular among the people because it allowed the use of some approved adaptations, including the use of the popular languages and dialects. [But the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not about popularity.]

Now, he said the Latin Mass may celebrated in private masses, in conventual or community mass in accordance with the specific statutes of the Congregation, in parishes upon request of the faithful and under the guidance of the bishop, [The Bishopis the moderator of the liturgy in his own diocese. Still, any Priest may use the 1962 Missal. There would not be a need to involve the Bishop]

"In such Masses, however, the readings may be given in the vernacular," he said. [Hmm... although the Epistles and Gospel is in Latin, before the Priest starts the homily, he reads out both of them in the vernacular. Not really and issue really.]

Motu Proprio Q&A on Possible Points of Confusion

2007-07-10T20:04:00.000+08:00

[From Comment received]
It's quite important to get out good information early on in the game so that people don't misunderstand the Motu Proprio. Toward that end, I offer the following unofficial Q&A of possible points of confusion, in the hopes that people won't misunderstand the document. If there are any inaccuracies in this, I welcome people to point them out. However, it seems like most of this is just common sense and basic Catholic teaching.

Q 1. May priests celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missal immediately or do they need to wait for September 14?

Priests may immediately offer the Mass in private according to the Missal of Pope John XXIII. The Holy Father in his letter to bishops (a clarification from the lawgiver of the motives and ends of the Motu Proprio) said, "As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted." Article 1, Summorum Pontificum) This would mean that a bishop would have no legal way of stopping the priest from privately offering the Mass according to the Rite of Pope John XXIII even now, before the implementation date of September 14. Since the Mass has never been prohibited, the bishop may only prevent a priest from offering it privately if he has reason in accordance with Canon Law for prohibiting him from celebrating Mass at all in the diocese. When a new law is made or a change of law takes effect, there is a need of a period of promulgation to allow time for the law to be known by all who must obey it. However, since in the case of private Masses there is no change in the law (since the traditional Mass has always been allowed), there is no time of promulgation needed. Therefore, even before the date of September 14, any priest is legally entitled to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, at least in private. It would also be a great act of good will and paternal charity for bishops to agree to permit public Masses in the Traditional Rite as requested by the faithful even before the September 14 date of implementation.

Q. 2 Why does the Holy Father prohibit the Traditional Mass during the Easter Triduum?

The Holy Father does no such thing. In Article 2 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Holy Father specifically states that he is speaking of, "Masses celebrated without the people..." This means that he is speaking in this article of the law only of private Masses. About this he says, "each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary."

So clearly the Holy Father is only saying that private Masses, where there is no "stable group of the faithful" are not permitted during the Easter Triduum. Perhaps this has to do with the busy schedule of priests during that time and the many pastoral demands upon him. It would be impractical for him to offer many private Masses during this time. However, public Masses, which are taken up later in the Motu Proprio, would not be at all affected by this prohibition. Where there is such a stable group of the faithful, Masses would become part of the regular schedule of the parish or church/chapel, and so they would be allowed, and during that most holy time of the year undoubtedly would be encouraged by the Holy See.

Q. 3 May individual religious communities celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass without permission of their superiors major?

Yes, religious communities could have irregularly scheduled Traditional Latin Masses even without the permission of their superiors major. In article 3 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Holy Father states, "Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues."

So a religious house could offer the Traditional Latin Mass on special occasions even without the permission of their superior major. They would only need this permission if they wished to celebrate this extraordinary form of the Roman Rite very often, probably, for example, if there was a desire for daily or weekly Masses. Clearly superiors are encouraged to offer generous access to the Traditional Latin Mass in the pastoral spirit of the Holy Father.

Q. 4 May a bishop prohibit people from attending the private Masses of priests offering the Traditional Latin Mass?

Absolutely not. As the Holy Father states in article 4 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, "Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted."

Q. 5 Can a parish or other place request more than just private Masses?

Yes, if there is a "stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlire liturgical tradition," which would mean that there is a sufficient number in the parish who are committed to the ancient Mass and desire it on a regular basis, then the Holy Father states, "the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962 . . ." There might be some reasons where this could be denied on a short term basis, such as a lack of a priest to say the Mass regularly in the Traditional form. However, the letter makes clear the Holy Father's wish that the faithful who desire the Traditional Latin Mass be granted access to it. So the priest by all means should grant the request of the faithful unless there is some real reason that he absolutely cannot. If there is some temporary reason why this cannot be granted, article 7 of the Motu Proprio provides that, "If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei.' " So Rome has pledged assistance through the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to making sure that assistance is offered to the faithful in this situation. Cases of this sort ought to be extremely rare as it is certainly expected that all parishes prepare for the implementation of this letter during the period of the promulgation before September 14. Free and low cost training for priests who wish to learn the Traditional Latin Mass is available through such groups as the Fraternity of Saint Peter and Una Voce International, as well as being offered by the Society of Saint Pius X (what a good gesture of good will if priests from dioceses began to learn the Traditional Mass from priests of the Society, thereby building useful and charitable relationships with them and hastening their eventual reunion with Holy Mother Church).

Q. 6 In cases where there is to be a publicly scheduled Mass in the Traditional Roman Rite, is the bishop's permission required?

No. This is not at all implied in the letter. The letter specifically leaves this up to the pastor or rector of the Church, who is to be guided by the Bishop. As the Holy Father states in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum Article 5, "In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church." So the Bishop, as always, must guarantee the unity of the faithful. The pastor is the one who grants the permission, but he does so under the watchful eye of the bishop, who makes sure that all is done in charity and respect for the Faith of the Church. This guidance, however, does not imply that the pastor needs permission of the Bishop. As the Holy Father stated, the Missal of Pope John XXIII was not abrogated, nor could it be abrogated. He has also stated that the excuse that the Traditional Mass is divisive is unfounded; In the Motu Proprio, he stated very clearly, "In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. " So this cannot be a reason for delaying permission for the Traditional Roman Rite in parishes.

Q. 7 Is permission needed from the bishop for the other sacraments?

No, although all is done under his guidance, as he is the visible guarantor of the unity of the Church in his diocese. The Holy Father states in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, "For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages." In article 9, the Motu Proprio also states, "The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it. Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it." So the pastor is to grant these just the same as he grants the Traditional Latin Mass, and the same appeal of the faithful to the Bishop and to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei would be available if they are denied these sacraments temporarily for some reason.

Q. 8 Does the Motu Proprio allow for daily Masses in the Traditional Roman Rite?

Yes it does. Also in Article 5, the Holy Father states, "Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days . . ."

Q. 9 May the readings in the Traditional Latin Mass be given in the vernacular?

The most frequent way of doing the readings at the Traditional Latin Mass is for the priest to read the readings according to the ancient form in Latin at the altar. Then he would read them in the vernacular immediately before his sermon. If, however, they are only read in the vernacular (which is not the standard way of doing so), the old lectionary would have to be used, containing the readings as approved by the Holy See at the time of the 1962 Missal. It would NOT be appropriate to use the readings from the NAB which are approved for use in the Novus Ordo Missae.

Q. 10 Is there any resource that Bishops can use to help satisfy requests for the "extraordinary form" in his diocese?

Yes. He has the ability according to section 8 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum to, "refer the problem to the Commission 'Ecclesia Dei' to obtain counsel and assistance." Of course, the best thing bishops could do to implement this is to return to more traditional teaching methods in seminaries, especially in the areas of liturgy and the Latin language.

Q. 11 May Bishops use the Traditional Rites of Ordination and Consecration, either of bishops or of a Church?

Although these are not specifically mentioned in the Motu Proprio since they do not pertain immediately to the faithful and their desire for the Traditional Latin Mass, they are nevertheless part of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, part of the precious liturgical treasure of the Church. They may therefore be used at the discretion of the bishop.

Q. 12 What if particular parishes wish only the celebration of the Traditional Roman Rite?

This is allowed for under the Motu Proprio. There is no reason why, according to the Motu Proprio, that a parish could not primarily wish the use of the Traditional Latin Mass. As the Holy Father states in Article 10 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, "The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law." Priests could even be devoted entirely to the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Traditional Latin Mass, while recognizing, as the Holy Father states in his letter to the bishops, "in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books." This specifically states that priests may not, "as a matter of principle" exclude celebration according to the new books. That does not mean that there won't be priests who as a matter of practice celebrate only the extraordinary rite, according to the desires of the faithful as guided by the bishops.

Q. 13 What does the Holy Father hope to accomplish with this Motu Proprio?

The Holy Father speaks of the pain that took place after the liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI. The Holy Father says in his letter to the bishops, "Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church." In order to heal these wounds, the Holy Father says, ". . . the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching . . . The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage." So the Holy Father clearly wishes the Traditional Roman liturgy to influence the Novus Ordo Mass so that true liturgical development may take place in conformity with ancient tradition. This may eventually lead to a new Missal, a combination of the two, which would eventually become a standard alongside the traditional "Tridentine" rite and which would be an integration and combination of the modern rite (with its admitted defects in style and content) and the traditional one, so rich as it is in spirituality and explicit theological formulations. This is also why the Holy Father wishes to see such aspects included in the Traditional Roman Rite as new saints from the modern calendar, so that the ancient rite becomes once again a living rite, a vibrant part of the Church's everyday life. In this way, eventually we may hope that the Novus Ordo abuses may be corrected by authentic organic development, fulfilling the Second Vatican Council's calls for revision of the liturgical books in conformity with Tradition.

Q. 14 Can specifically Novus Ordo practices, such as Communion in the hand or altar girls, be done at Traditional Latin Masses?

No they cannot. Those novelties are permitted only by Papal indult, which could be removed at any time, and they only apply to the Novus Ordo Mass. They have never been permitted at the Traditional Latin Mass, even in places where the Traditional Latin Mass was offered in predominantly Novus Ordo parishes by diocesan indult.

Q. 15 Does the Holy Father expect an immediate reconciliation with the SSPX as a result of this Motu Proprio?

The Holy Father almost certainly does not expect this. As he says in his letter to the bishops, "We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level." So the Holy Father is well aware that the Mass is not the only point of contention with the Society of Saint Pius X and that negotiations will be ongoing. Faithful should not try and preempt the Holy Father's work by being overly critical of the SSPX at this crucial time of goodwill. The SSPX has responded very positively to the Motu Proprio and sees it as an important step forward in negotiations with Rome. The best thing that we may do now is to act in charity and allow the Holy Father and the Society time to work out the remaining differences.

Reaction by the Catholic Church in India on Summorum Pontificum

2007-07-10T11:14:00.000+08:00

[Emphasis Mine]
Mumbai (AsiaNews) – The Indian Church has expressed its satisfaction and hope that it “can take care of the pastoral needs of the community” following Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum released last Saturday. In it the Pope announces that the Catholic Church will allow the use of the so-called Tridentine Mass in the form approved by John XXIII in 1962. The Motu Proprio is promulgated with an explicit reference to reconciliation and the ecclesial unity that was broken by the schism caused Mgr Marcel Lefebvre and his traditionalists.

According to Mgr Oswald Gracias, archbishop of Mumbai, the Motu Proprio will “have two important purposes.”

“One very important purpose will be to renew and enrich the liturgy, reclaiming the liturgical form that existed before the Council, which is a great heritage in the history of the church,” said the prelate who is also an expert in Canon Law.

“The Motu Proprio is a sign that the Holy Father wants to make available to the Church all the treasures of the Latin liturgy that have for centuries nourished the spiritual life of so many generations of Catholic faithful.”

“Secondly,” he explained, “it is a response to the pastoral needs of the faithful. In Mumbai, Cardinal Ivan Dias (Gracias’ predecessor) had shown much pastoral sensitivity in allowing the Tridentine Mass. However, there may be practical challenges since there are not that many priests who know Latin.”

On the long run, such an obstacle should be overcome. “In the Archdiocesan Seminary, Latin had already been reintroduced and is being taught; not because of the Motu Proprio, but because knowledge of Latin is essential and important for Ecclesiastical Studies,” Archbishop Gracias said.

Finally, he announced that he would “inform the priests and faithful of this Motu Proprio” and “would exercise pastoral sensitivity in explaining and implementing it in the appropriate way.”

Time Magazine on Summorum Pontificum

2007-07-10T10:57:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]
Why the Pope is Boosting Latin Mass
Saturday, Jul. 07, 2007
By JEFF ISRAELY/VATICAN CITY

After months of intense speculation, Pope Benedict XVI has eased restrictions on the Catholic Church’s traditional Latin Mass — a move that could raise controversy both within the Church, and in its interfaith relations, given the fact that the old rites include a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews. [Again, the tired chestnut. The author might have done better gumshoe work on this.]

The decree, called a motu proprio, or personal initiative of the Pontiff, was made public Saturday along with an explanatory letter to the world’s bishops acknowledging the recent "news reports" and "confusion" about the lifting of restrictions for access to the old rite. Known as the Tridentine rite — delivered in Latin with the priest usually facing the altar, his back to the congregation ["O chestnut-tree, great-rooted blossomer…"] ... Some Vatican insiders caution that Benedict’s new ruling will simply ease restrictions on access to the old liturgy, which has continued to be followed by a small minority of traditionalists. But others predict that the decree could turn into the most explosive internal Church policy of Benedict’s papacy, bound to undercut decades of reform and sharpen divisions among the faithful. [Always with the drama.] Here’s why both may be true.

...

For more than a year, Vatican insiders knew Benedict was keen to ease restrictions on the Tridentine mass. Indeed, in the first months of his papacy, he’d met with leaders of the "schismatic" followers of the late ultratraditionalist [If he thinks the SSPX is "ultraconservative", I could introduce him to some really interesting people.] Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who’d split with the Vatican over the introduction of the vernacular and other Vatican II reforms. In his explanatory letter, Benedict says this decree alone will not heal the rift, which is on "a deeper level." So the Pope seems to be showing the ultratraditionalists — who want to undo all the Vatican II reforms — that he will move, but only so far, to accommodate their concerns. Benedict also acknowledged the document required many months of "reflection, numerous consultations and prayer."

Bishops in the West, particularly in France, had shared their concerns that widening access to the old Mass would deepen the rifts and create splinter movements among their followers. The Pope also listened to concern about how this document could affect inter-faith affairs, given the inclusion of the Good Friday prayer calling for the conversion of Jews. Though much less offensive than a reference to "perfidious Jews" that Pope John XXIII eliminated in 1962, some Jewish leaders are bound to ask why, after years of growing mutual respect, the Pope would not simply excise the conversion prayer. [Will someone consider the possibility that the problem does not in fact lie in the Good Friday prayer?]

The Pope says he knows some wonder if the document calls into question the very heart of the Second Vatican Council. "This fear," Benedict declares, "is unfounded." As for the precise timing of the release of the document, one can wonder (with a wink) if it’s more than coincidence that it came out just before Benedict zips out of Rome for a three-week mountain retreat. [This is where the author, I think, picks up on a good point. This was already raised eloquently by Luigi Accattoli of Corriere and written about here as well.]

Why it may not be as big a deal as it seems

In practical terms, the vast majority of Catholics — even among the most traditionalist — are unlikely to relinquish the vernacular Mass. The number of priests who have the language skills or liturgical training for the old Latin Mass is small, and likely to get smaller. [I bet not. I suspect numbers will turn upward again.] Undoubtedly reflecting his own personal experience, the 80-year-old Pope cites Catholics for whom the Tridentine rite "had been familiar to them from childhood." As those generations pass there may be ever fewer faithful who are attached to the old Mass, and Benedict is simply providing a sort of bridge for the current over-50 crowd. [This ignores what the document Summorum Pontificum actually says. The provisions of Pope Benedict aim at more than "nostalgia". Far more. They are not only for people of questionable unity with the Church, not only for older Catholics, but also for all those who have come to know of the older forms of liturgy and desire them.]

Why it may be an even bigger deal than it seems

The symbolic weight of this decision may actually be heavier than the practical effect. Church progressives, and indeed some conservatives, are asking why Benedict went out of his way to reopen a hot-button issue that, for the vast majority of Catholics, has long been settled. With traditionalists emboldened and progressives feeling under siege, the Church hierarchy and local bishops may wind up caught in the crossfire. [There has never been a time, since Peter faced the angry crowd while Christ was being grilled by the Sanhedrin, when bishops were NOT caught in the crossfire. That is why we have bishops.] Still, on a more substantive level, Benedict’s real long-term objective may be a sort of "counter-reform" of the alternative practices of the new Mass rather than a widespread return to the old one. He says the Vatican II reform "was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear." This document is certainly a clear warning to those progressives who have their own ideas about reforming the Mass. [The author almost got it. First, he chose a negative view of "counter-reform" which I do not think does justice to Pope Benedict’s long-articulated views. Pope Benedict’s approach is to seek continuity rather than rupture. "Counter-reform"does not characterize that accurately, IMO.]

What it says about Pope Benedict

The Pope, in any case, does seem to have an affinity for the old Latin Mass, as he does generally for the Church’s ancient traditions. His explanatory letter states: "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful." Still, even as he continues to show his traditionalist stripes, [Frankly, I think this move shows His Holiness’ liberal stripes. Liberal not in the sense of iconoclastic or progressivist. Not liberal in the sense of the "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture". But rather liberal in the sense of liberality. There is a generosity and freeing quality to his actions. There need be no conflict between "traditional" and "liberal", properly understood. However, "traditionalist" paints Benedict into a cornerunfairly .] Benedict wants all corners of the Church to know that he is open to at least listen to their input. [Sounds liberal to me.] What remains to be seen is whether this latest decree is ultimately more about the future, or simply the past.

Summorum Pontificum Clarifications

2007-07-10T09:35:00.000+08:00

[Taken from NLM]
Evidently in the coming weeks and months, we can expect some formal and official clarifications from the Ecclesia Dei commission on questions such as those about to follow, but there does seem to be a few misunderstandings brewing out there about the Motu Proprio that are worthwhile responding to now.

Obviously we make no claim to be the authoritative interpreter of these matters, but many of these issues seem to be reasonable to respond to by a simple, straightforward and contextualized reading of the document -- in other words, with the "lights" we presently have available to us.

To that end, we offer our interpretations of the answers to these questions with the understanding that we submit to the definitive judgement of the Holy See, the authentic interpreter, who will no doubt be approached about all these matters, given the confusion that is out there.

By putting these out there however, hopefully people will at least see fit to "reserve judgement" or "presume the best" until a definitive response from Ecclesia Dei (or otherwise) is made. However, I personally feel quite safe in the conclusions made for each of these questions.

>Questions/Misunderstandings about the Motu Proprio

Question 1: Does the Motu Proprio not allow the classical liturgical books of 1962 to be used for the Easter Triduum?

Response: The statement about what is not allowed during the Easter Triduum does not reference the 1962 liturgical books, but rather private Masses -- regardless of which liturgical books.

The classical Roman books are not excluded from the Easter Triduum. However, where and when they might be used during the Triduum will depend upon the pastoral circumstances. Certainly at 'personal parishes' that use almost exclusively the 1962 liturgical books, they will continue to use the 1962 liturgical books for the Easter Triduum.

Source Reference: "Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum."

Question 2: Does the Motu Proprio now allow the 3 year lectionary to be used that is employed in the missal of Paul VI?

Response: The Motu Proprio only mentions that in public masses according to the classical liturgical books, the readings may be in the vernacular "using editions recognized by the Holy See." It seems that this simply refers to the readings as found in the classical liturgical books and not the new lectionary.

The use of "edition" is likely causing the confusion (as well a rumour that came out prior to the MP release) but that would simply seem to be a reference to using a vernacular translation that the Holy See has approved for liturgical use. (e.g. an inclusive language translation may not be employed.)

An approved edition, it would seem to me, is much different than approving a different lectionary altogether -- one based upon a different liturgical calendar, with variations and differences in the liturgical seasons and Feast days.

The fact that it can be mentioned as an option that can be implemented in the here and now by priests at their own discretion would further point to the fact that it merely intends to formalize a practice/indult which allowed the use of vernacular form of the readings (as found in the 1962 Missal itself) to be proclaimed at their proper liturgical points. With the structural differences in the liturgical year, as well as the number of readings and so on, the challenge of incorporating such successfully and harmoniously would reasonably seem to require at least as much intervention, study and planning as the matter of introducing the new prefaces (which is to be studied by the Ecclesia Dei commission). It therefore seems highly unlikely that such was intended.

Source Reference: Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

Question 3: The Motu Proprio does not mention the sacrament of Holy Orders. Are ordinations in the classical form therefore not allowed any longer?

Response: The Motu Proprio seems to be focused upon the sacraments that would be offered in parish life, and which apply to the discretion of the parish priest, or in the case of the Sacrament of Confirmation, which are offered by the Bishop in a parish setting.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders is specific to the Bishop and not inside a parish setting, which would be one possibility as to why it wasn't mentioned. It is also noteworthy that it is a current practice and one that is not specifically mentioned as being prohibited now. This is also relevant.

It would therefore seem that the present scenario will continue to apply: Ordinations in diocesan seminaries will occur in accordance with the modern form. Ordinations of priests studying in classical use seminaries will occur in the classical form.

PBS Report on the Classical Use

2007-07-09T22:52:00.000+08:00

[Taken from NLM]
Awhile back it was reported that PBS was working on a report in relation to the Motu Proprio. That report is now available. There is text as well as video. (Thanks to one of our readers, Ken, for sending this in.)

Here is the text:

by TIM O’BRIEN

Catholics of a certain age grew up hearing the Mass only in Latin. But since the 1960s, priests have been allowed to say the Mass in Latin only with the permission of their bishop. [NLM: not accurate of course. For the sake of anyone reading this other than our normal readership, what required permission, formerly, was to say Mass according to the pre-conciliar liturgy. The post-conciilar liturgy can always be said in Latin, without any permission required.] The Vatican is now loosening those restrictions, so the Latin Mass -- also called the Tridentine Mass -- may soon become more widely available, although few of the world's Catholics understand Latin. And yet over the years some Catholics have remained committed to a Mass they consider more historically authentic. At St. Mary Mother of God Parish in Washington, D.C., Monsignor Charles Pope says the Mass in Latin one Sunday a month, and it’s well attended.

Monsignor CHARLES POPE (Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.): The Tridentine Mass is a form of the Mass that existed prior to 1962. Things began to change in the Catholic liturgy probably in the mid-1960s, and certainly by 1970 what’s known as the new Mass was fully in force.

There tends to be a religious tendency for the language used inside the churches to be more ancient, and I think that’s largely why Latin remained. It was the main language of the Church even after the Latin language had ceased to be spoken.

The priest always faced the altar. In fact, the priest and the people all face one direction. Some people say the priest had his back to the people. But the reality is that the priest and the people were all facing one direction, an eastward orientation -- at least theoretically eastward -- and everyone was looking for the risen Christ.

Tonight’s liturgy is referred to as a Solemn High Mass. There’s a priest, a deacon, and a sub-deacon who all take part in the liturgy, and it adds solemnity to the liturgy. And they each have proper roles to fill. We also have a lot of extra servers. And it’s just a more solemn form of the Mass, with an opening procession and, of course, the use of incense and so on, which is all unique to either the sung or the solemn high form of the Mass.

People of all age groups attend and that’s, I think, a little bit surprising. It was always thought that if we were to go back to the Latin it would mostly be the older folks. But one of the things that’s been discovered just about everywhere the Latin Mass is celebrated, there’s a huge number of young people as well. And they didn’t grow up with the Latin, but there’s something attractive about this ancient form of the liturgy -- its dignity, and its sort of very just lofty quality, especially in some of its forms.

I’ve been saying this Mass for 18 years now, for all my years as a priest. There’s a part of me that loves to sort of step back into time and to be part of something ancient that goes way, way back, all the way back hundreds and hundreds of years, even thousands of years, into the ancient past using an ancient language. This is a Mass that most of the saints knew.

Source: Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, July 06, 2007, PBS

The Old Mass Returns

2007-07-09T21:50:00.000+08:00

[Taken from NLM]
After months of speculation, Pope Benedict XVI today issued a "motu proprio" allowing worldwide use of the old Latin Mass

by Dr. Robert Moynihan

VATICAN CITY, July 7, 2007 -- After months of anticipation and speculation, after numerous meetings with supporters and opponents, Pope Benedict XVI moved decisively today to issue a very brief, 4-page Latin text which may very well go down as one of the most important, and controversial, acts of his pontificate.

With little fanfare, with no press conference, on a quiet Saturday in July when many journalists away from the Vatican press office, Benedict issued his long-awaited motu proprio entitled Summorum Pontificum (the title comes from the first two words of the Latin text).

There is an intimate connection between worship and belief, so much so that theologians, and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) prominent among them, have repeatedly declared that the lex orandi (the law of prayer, the way one prays to God, the way one worships God) influences and indeed actually becomes the lex credendi (the law of believing, the way one believes, one's faith).

So, for Benedict to call for a wider celebration in the Church of the "old Mass," the old way of praying, is implicitly a call for a return to the old way of believing connected with that old way of praying.

The implications of this are, of course, many and profound. And only as this text is received and acted upon will those implications really become clear.

For the moment, all we can say is that "he did it." He published the text. Some in Rome had said it would appear a year ago, six months ago, three months ago. So, it began to seem that it might never appear. But it has appeared. That is the principal, first news in this matter.

But the second news is that this text, in its clear reaffirmation of the holiness and validity of the Church's old, pre-conciliar liturgy and its equally clear affirmation of the holiness and validity of the new, post-conciliar liturgy, may very well mark a watershed in the modern history of the Church. Why? Because that history has been marked by considerable, sometimes profound confusion about how Catholics should worship, and how they should believe. In essence, the decision to publish this text means a commitment on the Pope's part to try to begin a thorough-going renewal of the Church's faith and practice. He is beginning with the Mass, because that is where the Church's life begins, in the celebration of the Eucharist, in the celebration of the presence of the Risen Lord who is the sole reason for the Church's existence.

And so we can expect more in the weeks and months ahead.

Holy Orders & Summorum Pontificum

2007-07-09T21:48:00.000+08:00

[Taken from NLM]
There is no mention of Ordination rites in the MP. All other sacraments are mentioned by name ("The pastor...may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick... Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical...").

Why is this? What does it mean?

[Comment from Shawn: If I might be permitted to add my own thoughts to one of my co-blogger's post. I don't think it means anything. The document in question is focused upon the extraordinary/classical use in a parish setting. Notice that even where it mentions the bishop and confirmation, that confirmation is of course a "parish life sacrament" -- Holy Orders is not. The seminaries of the FSSP, ICRSS and so on will most certainly continue to have ordinations in the classical liturgical books.]

Juventutem WYD 2008 Latest Info

2007-07-09T21:33:00.000+08:00

[Juventutem Australia]
A draft for the liturgical programme is now available.

The information below is provided to the best of our knowledge. Please consult regularly for any updates or changes.

REGISTRATION

Information on registration will appear shortly. Please note that in addition to the WYD 2008 registration fee, there will be an additional fee for Juventutem as in 2005. There are considerable expenses involved in the planning and organization of the fortnightly programme, but please be assured we are doing all we can to try and keep this fee as affordable for pilgrims as possible

TRAVEL

Travel to Australia

It is important that pilgrims from overseas plan to fly into Melbourne on July 8 to give them time to recover from jetlag and settle in, before the Days in the Dioceses commences on July 10. It is therefore advisable for pilgrims to book flights as early as is possible to help ensure arrival on July 8.

Travel between Melbourne and Sydney

Travel will be available from Melbourne to Sydney by coach, rail, and air. However there are some restrictions on rail travel. WIth over 30,000 pilgrims expected in Melbourne, the only feasible travel is by either air or coach. At this stage we plan to transport pilgrims to Sydney by coach on Monday, July 14.

Travel from Australia

Most pilgrims will leave Australia from Sydney, so need to book their outgoing flights from there.

ACCOMMODATION

Accommodation in Melbourne

The Archdiocese of Melbourne is intending to billet pilgrims with local families. We however are also pursuing the possibility of housing all Juventutem pilgrims in a school hall or community centre, and in relatively close proximity to the main church.

Accommodation in Sydney

The WYD 2008 Organizing Committee will be arranging basic accommodation for Juventutem pilgrims, however it is too early to give any details yet.

CHURCHES

Church in Melbourne (Week 1)

The church in Melbourne is planned to be St. Aloysius', home of the Latin Mass community in Melbourne.

Church in Sydney (Week 2)

The church in Sydney may not be decided until later this year. We have provided the WYD 2008 committee a list of seven possible churches in order of preference. Please bookmark this link for any updates.

A Bishop Whines... :p

2007-07-09T14:06:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Rorate Caeli]
Some words of Italian bishop Luca Brandolini about Summorum Pontificum have been reported by Reuters. Here is the full interview granted by him to Italian daily La Repubblica (Sunday edition):

"I will obey the Pontiff, but it is a day of grief. The reform is canceled"

ORAZIO LA ROCCA

VATICAN CITY - "This day is for me a day of grief. I have a lump in my throat and I do not manage to hold back my tears. But, I will obey the Holy Father, because I am a bishop and because I care for him. However, I cannot hide my sadness for the putting aside of one of the most important reforms of the Second Vatican Council." In fact, Monsignor Luca Brandolini, Bishop of Sora-Aquino-Pontecorvo and member of the Liturgical Committee of the Cei (Italian Episcopal Conference), hardly holds back his tears when he is asked for a comment on the reintroduction of the Tridentine Latin Mass: "Please, do not ask me anything, I do not wish to speak [about it], for I am living the saddest day of my life as a priest, as a bishop, and as a man."

Monsignor Brandolini, why [are you] so upset?

"It is a day of grief, not only for me, but for many who lived and worked in the Second Vatican Council. Today, a reform for which so many labored, at the cost of great sacrifices, animated solely by the wish to renew the Church, has been canceled."

The optional return to the Tridentine Rite represents thus a danger for the Church?

"We hope not. It remains to be seen in the future, but today an important reform of the Council was undermined."

Why are you so touched by the decision taken by Pope Ratzinger?

The episcopal ring which I carry on my finger belonged to archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the father of the Conciliar liturgical reform. I was, at the time of the Council, a disciple of his and a close co-worker. I was close to him when he worked in that reform and I always recall with how much passion he worked for liturgical renewal. Now, his work has been canceled."

You will not accept the "motu proprio" of Benedict XVI, then?

"I will obey, because I care for the Holy Father. I have for him the same sentiment that a son has for his father. And then, as a bishop, I am bound to obedience. Yet, in my heart, I suffer deeply. I feel as if wounded in my heart, and I cannot help saying it. Nonetheless, if anyone in my diocese will ask me to follow the Tridentine rite, I will not be able to say no. But I do not believe this will happen, because ever since I have been the bishop of Sora-Aquino-Pontecorvo, there has never been anyone who has expressed a similar desire. I am certain that it will always be like this in the future.

Interview with Cardinal Castillon Hoyos

2007-07-09T14:03:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Rorate Caeli]
From Sunday's edition of Il Giornale, an interview of the President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, with Andrea Tornielli, on the main aspects of Summorum Pontificum.
What meaning does the Pope's decision have?

"The Pontiff's letter is clear. It is a decision which comes from the heart and from the mind of a Pope who loves and knows liturgy well. He wishes that the heritage represented by the ancient liturgy be preserved, without this representing any contradiction with the new Mass. Thousands of letters arrived in Rome from those who asked for the freedom to be able to participate in the old rite."

There have been those who said that Ratzinger thus "rejected" the Council...

"Benedict XVI has not walked or will walk, in any way or expression, on a path which is different from that indicated by the Council. The new Mass remains the ordinary Roman Rite. There is nothing in the motu proprio or in the papal letter which signals a minimal deviation from the Council. It may be appropriate to recall that Vatican II did not forbid the ancient Mass, which was celebrated by the Conciliar Fathers during sessions. No rejection, no offense. It is an encounter with the demands of groups of faithful, an act of liberality."

Is it an act of continuity or rupture in comparison to the Montini and Wojtyla pontificates?

"There is no contraposition. Paul VI granted the possibility to celebrate with the old rite soon after the coming into effect of the new Missal and Pope Wojtyla intended to prepare a Motu proprio similar to the one now promulgated."

Is the authority of the Bishop undermined?

"Those who have argued [so], have done so based on a prejudice, because the role of the Bishop rests assured, canon law does not change. It is the competence of the pastor of the diocese to coordinate the liturgy, in harmony with the supreme orderer, who is the Pope. In case of problems, the Bishop will intervene, always in agreement with the dispositions established by the motu proprio. I am certain that the pastoral sensibility of Bishops will find the way to favor the unity of the Church, helping to avoid a schism."

How do we deal with the Holy Friday prayer for the Jews?

"The authorized Missal is that of 1962, promulgated by John XXIII, in which the expression 'perfidis iudaeis' and 'iudaica perfidia' had already been removed."

[...]

Do you predict difficulties?

"I am not aware, in the History of the Church, of any moment in which important decisions have been taken without difficulty. But I strongly hope that they may be coped with and overcome, with the approach suggested by the Pope in his letter."

After this decision, the end of the rupture with the Lefebvrists is closer?

"With this Motu proprio, the door is widely opened [si spalanca la porta] for a return of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to full communion. If, after this act, the return does not take place, I truly will not be able to comprehend. I wish to clarify, though, that the papal document has not been made for the Lefebvrists, but because the Pope is convinced of the need to underline that there is a continuity in the Tradition, and that in the Church one does not move forward by way of fractures. The ancient Mass has never been abolished nor forbidden." [AnTor]

In the Diocese of Burlington...

2007-07-09T13:55:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]

Letter to the Faithful
on Summorum Pontificum
(The care of the Supreme Pontiffs for Divine Worship):

On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970.

The Most Reverend Salvatore R. Matano
9th Bishop of Burlington

July 6th, 2007

My Dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on July 7, 2007, promulgated his Apostolic Letter, in the form of “Motu Proprio”, Summorum Pontificum (The care of the Supreme Pontiffs for Divine Worship): On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970. In this Apostolic Letter, the Holy Father explains two forms for celebrating the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Holy Mass: an ordinary form, as contained in the Missale Romanum (Roman Missal) of Paul VI, which is the liturgy now commonly celebrated in our churches, and an extraordinary form, which is the rite contained in the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V and published again by Blessed John XXIII, and which is the Latin Mass celebrated prior to the reform of 1970. Pope Benedict XVI points out that these two forms make up the Liturgy of the one Roman Rite.

Noting the above, the Holy Father has asked the Diocesan Bishops throughout the world, since each is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctium Concilium, 22; Letter of Pope Benedict XVI Accompanying the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, p.3), to make the extraordinary form available to the faithful where there is “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language.” (Ibid., p.2). [Respectfully, the degree of liturgical formation and knowledge of the Latin language are not specified by the Holy Father, in the letter or the Motu Proprio. Would the faithful have to demonstrate knowledge of Latin and liturgical formation before they could have the older Mass? Is there going to be a test? Would the same be applied to Latin celebrations of the Novus Ordo? If people would have to show their knowledge and formation, would that not make any Mass in Latin a desirable goal, a sign of successful implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium? Sacrosanctum Concilium 54 requires that pastors of souls teach their flocks to sing and respond in Latin and their mother tongue. Is setting the bar high for Masses in Latin an admission that Mass in the vernacular is okay for those who aren’t educated and aren’t well formed in matters liturgical? But that can’t be the case.] Our Holy Father notes that the present vernacular celebration of the Sacred Liturgy “continues to be the normal form—the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.” (Ibid. p.1).

In making the extraordinary form available (1962 Roman Missal), Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that: “Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently lead to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.” (Ibid p. 2). [If there were no abuses in the Novus Ordo, if from the beginning the books had been followed in a spirit of continuity rather than of rupture, we wouldn’t be talking about Summorum Pontificum today!]

In essence, with this Apostolic Letter our Holy Father is calling for a renewed solemn and reverential celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Whether celebrated in the ordinary formextraordinary form, or the the Eucharist is for us the real presence of Jesus Christ in our midst, His very body, blood, soul and divinity. As one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ, is asking “that the Church of Christ offer worthy worship to the Divine Majesty ‘for the praise and glory or his name’ and ‘for the good of all his Holy Church.’” (Summorum Pontificum, p. 1).

With filial devotion and obedience to our Holy Father, I will consult with our Council of Priests and the Deans to determine the most suitable manner for making the extraordinary form of the Sacred Liturgy available to those who request it in accordance with paragraph two above, namely that there is “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language.” [Again, is there going to be a test? Shall we begin with a test in Latin for the Council of Priests and Deans? Frankly, I don’t think this is in the spirit or letter of Summorum Pontificum. Art. 2 says any priest of the Latin rite can use the older Missale without any permission from the Ordinary. Art. 4 says people may attend it, with due observance of law – which probably means the parish and people aren’t under interdict or excommunicated or the liturgical calendar permits celebrations, etc. Art. 5.1 states that the PASTOR of the parish makes the determinations about public celebrations and he is to be willing so long as everything is working harmoniously for the good of the parish and avoid discord. Art. 5.3 says the PASTOR permits public celebrations. Art. 5.5 says that rectors make these determinations where there is a rector instead of a pastor. There is no indication in Summorum Pontificum the bishop makes these determinations in the parishes. I want to read His Excellency’s statement that he will consult the Council of Priests to mean that he is looking for ways to be supportive of the pastors who will make determinations. The fact that the bishop will celebrate the older form in the cathedral must be taken as a good sign.]

To effectively implement this Apostolic Letter, I ask for patience on the part of all. To celebrate the extraordinary form of the Sacred Liturgy with the proper reverence and honor it merits, careful preparation is needed. It is now over thirty years since this venerable rite has been celebrated in our Diocese. Thus, pastors able to celebrate the extraordinary form must reacquaint themselves with its rubrics. Also, servers must be properly trained, as well as choirs and cantors. [Fair enough. We don’t want slop. We want things to go well. Perhaps what are needed are diocesan sponsored workshops, perhaps at the Cathedral, where the bishop can teach priests how to do it properly. No, really. Bishops should take charge of this and lead by example. Control the situation. Don’t be forced to react to what comes about in parishes as a result of poor preparation.] At the same time, due to a severe shortage of priests, the first duty of the Bishop and the pastors is to make the Eucharistic Sacrifice available to as many people as possible, using the rite that is understood by the majority of the faithful in attendance. [This begs the question of how well people understand what is going on at Mass with the Novus Ordo. Vernacular is not enough to assume people are getting it. We need a deep deep liturgical catechesis across the board. The older form will be of great help in this.] In this regard, Pope Benedict XVI notes: “It is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.” (Accompanying Letter, op. cit., p.2). When this fundamental need is met, attention can be given to significant numbers of the faithful who seek the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Eucharistic Liturgy. [Is a numbers driven thing? Summorum Pontificum talks about "groups" of the faithful: coetus fidelium. No certain size is required.]

However, at this very moment it is possible for parts of the Mass to be sung in Latin, [It is possible for ALL OF THE MASS to be in Latin, even the readings. Every single word, spoken or sung, in the Novus Ordo can be in Latin.] such as the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, as well as appropriate Latin hymns from the Church’s vast treasury of liturgical music and Gregorian Chant. This use of the Latin language in the Sacred Liturgy can provide an appropriate bridge [Fair enough. Let’s get Novus Ordo Masses going in Latin too, right away.] between the ordinary and extraordinary forms of celebrating the Divine Mysteries of our Redemption in Christ until the implementation of the extraordinary form. [The provisions of Summorum Pontificum go into effect at midnight the morning of 14 September. If at midnight, Father the Pastor of St. Ipsidipsy happens to be strolling outside the church and a group of faithful of any size happens to be coming back after a parish curling tournament, and they happen to ask the pastor for the "Tridentine" Mass, Father the Pastor could say, "Yes, my dear little sheep. Come into the church for an extraordinary experience." Father the Pastor can do this on his own initiative. THAT is what Summorum Pontificum says.]

Desirous of fulfilling the pastoral needs of those who seek the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal, I will celebrate Holy Mass in this extraordinary form on the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15, 2007, at Saint Joseph’s Co-Cathedral at 7:00pm. [Excellent! And this a full month BEFORE the MP goes into force. This is what we need. I remind everyone that any bishop RIGHT NOW can implement in his diocese everything in Summorum Pontificum with the flick of a pen. Since 1988 he can give every priest faculties for the old Mass and sacraments. Since 1988, he can set up parishes or oratories or religious institutes. The bishop has held all the cards, all this time, and still does until 14 September. Then some, not all, the cards will change.] This celebration will invoke our Mother Mary’s intercession, asking that all we do to celebrate Her Son’s presence among us will bring glory to His name and harmony and peace among His people.

In closing, let us remind ourselves that the Eucharist is the August Sacrament of Unity, intended to unite us in faith and in love for one another. Let us approach our Holy Father’s Apostolic Letter in this spirit.

Asking the Lord’s blessing upon us as we seek to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries of our salvation with devotion and hearts filled with praise and thanksgiving, I remain,

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

The Most Reverend Salvatore R. Matano
Bishop of Burlington

Summorum Pontificum & Ecumenism

2007-07-09T13:47:00.000+08:00

More from Athansius Contra Mundum

If ecumenism has been so good for the Church, if it has done so much for "Catholic-Jewish" relations, why is it that after 40 years Jewish leaders still haven't the faintest idea what Catholic teaching is, and are imbued instead with the false idea that Vatican II changed something, that it created new doctrine concerning Jews?

It is simple, ecumenism, even as practiced by Popes of the last 40 years, blurs distinctions, waters down doctrine, and creates confusion and division. Its goal is to make a false unity in the division. Could it be any more obvious? Clarifying the status of the Mass of Catholic tradition which has one prayer on one day of the year, amidst many prayers made on that day creates utter and complete hysteria and causes Jewish newspapers to print woodcuts of absurd medieval cartoons depicting Jews carrying out occult ceremonies on Christian children. As if it was universally believed then, as if it will be now because of one prayer asking for conversion. Could we have any more sign that ecumenism and dialogue is a failure? (yes, I am going to ignore my spell checker and go back to spelling dialogue the English way rather than the American way absent the "ue").

The proof is in the pudding. By their fruits you shall know them. We can't do anything too Catholic or everyone is offended. It can only be hoped, that the prayers of the Holy Liturgy on Good Friday will be evermore prevalent, and that true unity might be effected, the unity in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a unity of Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc. who all reject their former errors, and profess Jesus Christ, who is the same Yesterday, Today, and Forever, the same even after Vatican II.

Summorum Pontificum Commentary Part 1

2007-07-09T13:45:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Athansius Contra Mundum]
This is truly a historic occasion, and the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum is an important document for the life of the Church. It is not a perfect document however, that is important to note. Some people really expected a document which would solve all problems. I knew from early on this would not be the case. My interest was mainly in whether or not important things were said, so as to make a starting point. It is my judgment that they have, and we have a strong and well fortified dock from which to begin our voyage into the heart of Catholic Tradition.

The text is blessedly brief and clear, not full of ambiguous mumbo jumbo about the pilgrim people of God this, etc. Though I think it could have ironed out some more, I am greatful for what we did get. This I think is highly important. If there was nothing good here, I would not say so. I would not put false optimism out there. Even the Society of St. Pius X has said that this document is basically good, even though it is only a start. We should be rejoicing, praying for the Pope, and begin building bridges with our local hierarchy to work for the implementation of this document. What I find both sad and ironic is that though I have waited for this document for 7 years, now I have truly very little to say, and have had to muster up the energy all day to write on this, but I feel it is important.

In the first place, Pope Benedict covers the history of the formation of the Roman Rite, and the codification of that rite by St. Pius V. He doesn't try and cover it up and make it look like St. Pius created his own liturgy as the modernists claim, he explains very clearly, in accord with obvious fact that the Tridentine Liturgy is a continuation of that same Roman Liturgy known to the saints. Then he makes mention of the reform efforts of every Pope from Clement VIII to John XXIII in 1961(typical edition 1962), and finally Vatican II and the reform of Paul VI. Noting the question of the Traditional Liturgy and the various indults since that time, Pope Benedict sets the background for the declaration which he makes in 12 articles. Note all translation and emphasis are mine:

Art. 1. Missale Romanum a Paulo VI promulgatum ordinaria expressio "Legis orandi" Ecclesiae catholicae ritus latini est. Missale autem Romanum a S. Pio V promulgatum et a B. Ioanne XXIII denuo editum habeatur uti extraordinaria expressio eiusdem "Legis orandi" Ecclesiae et ob venerabilem et antiquum eius usum debito gaudeat honore. Hae duae expressiones "legis orandi" Ecclesiae, minime vero inducent in divisionem "legis credendi" Ecclesiae; sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.

Art. 1 The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the Lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Yet the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and [promulgated] anew by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same lofty Lex orandi of the Church and she shall rejoice on account of its venerable and ancient usage by which it is dutifully honored. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi truly by no means induce division in the law of belief of the Church; they are two uses of the one Roman Rite.

A lot is going to be made of ordinary and extraordinary. Some will no doubt claim that since it is an Extraordinary expression, it should only be seen once in a while. Juridically speaking, and in terms of the Latin language, Ordinary and Extraordinary only explain the case in point of fact, not in what they ought to be as they do in English. The Latin identifies these as such because it is a fact that the Novus Ordo remains the normativa, the way the hierarchy normally does things. The Traditional Mass is the form out of the ordinary, but not a rare application. While I was searching for good Latin references on this I found an excellent commentary by Fr. Z which pointed out a usage by St. Jerome which meant excessive.

Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet. Conditiones vero a documentis antecedentibus "Quattuor abhinc annos" et "Ecclesia Dei" pro usu huius Missalis statutae, substituuntur ut sequitur:

Accordingly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the typical edition of Bl. John XXIII having been promulgated in the year 1962 and never abrogated, is an extraordinary form of the Church's liturgy, lawful to celebrate. Truly the conditions from the preceding documents "Quattuor abhinc annos" and "Ecclesia Dei" the statutes for the use of this Missal, is substituted as follows:

I can't help but notice that the phrase "licet celebrare" which is lawful to celebrate was excised from the translation on the Vatican Website. I don't know why. Nevertheless, the phrase "never abrogated" is perhaps the most important participle in a papal document of the last 40 years. What it means is that regardless of what has been said before, intimated before, whatever apparent approval to the position that the Traditional Liturgy was abrogated the Vatican seemed to give by allowing its restriction, it is now beyond question that it is always lawful for any priest to say a Tridentine Mass, not only at 2pm on a Sunday afternoon once a month, but at 9am on Sunday morning, and indeed every day. By saying this Pope Benedict is taking from the hands of the Bishops the ability to prohibit the Traditional Liturgy.

Now some may say, wait a minute, Pope Benedict explained in his explanatory letter that he wasn't taking anything away. He is not, he is just pointing out that the Bishops never actually had the power to take it away, and it was through confusion and the failure of the Vatican to clearly state the status of the Missal that Bishops for a time had the ability to regulate it.

This is the most important part of the document, even above other considerations. It clearly states without ambiguity, again like St. Pius V, that this Mass is lawful and good.

Art. 2. In Missis sine populo celebratis, quilibet sacerdos catholicus ritus latini, sive saecularis sive religiosus, uti potest aut Missali Romano a beato Papa Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 edito, aut Missali Romano a Summo Pontifice Paulo VI anno 1970 promulgato, et quidem qualibet die, excepto Triduo Sacro. Ad talem celebrationem secundum unum alterumve Missale, sacerdos nulla eget licentia, nec Sedis Apostolicae nec Ordinarii sui.

In Masses celebrated without the people, any Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether he be secular [diocesan] or religious, may say either the Roman Missal from Bl. Pope John XXIII from the year 1962 edition or from the supreme Pontiff Paul VI in the year promulgated in 1970 and the same on any day whatsoever, except the Triduum. For such a celebration according to one Missal or the other, the priest needs no license [permission], neither from the Apostolic seat nor from his Ordinary.

This is a logical consequence of the fact that the Missal is not and never has been abrogated. No permissions from the Bishop, or the Pope. You can't get any more clear than that.

On the other hand this Truduum business needs explaining. You see, a priest can not say low Mass privately for In Cena Domini, Parasceve, or Sabatto Sancto. This was true in the old rite, it is true in the Novus Ordo now, and it will continue to be true. The Pope is not revoking some long held privilege. It just means that one or the other shall be used publicly.

Art. 3. Si communitates Institutorum vitae consecratae atque Societatum vitae apostolicae iuris sive pontificii sive dioecesani quae in celebratione conventuali seu "communitatis" in oratoriis propriis celebrationem sanctae Missae iuxta editionem Missalis Romani anno 1962 promulgatam habere cupiunt, id eis licet. Si singula communitas aut totum Institutum vel Societas tales celebrationes saepe vel plerumque vel permanenter perficere vult, res a Superioribus maioribus ad normam iuris et secundum leges et statuta particularia decernatur.

If communities of institutes of consecrated life and also societies of apostolic life, whether of pontifical or diocesan right [law], desire to have the celebration of the Holy Mass according to the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962 it is lawful for them. If single communities or a whole Institute or Society as such wishes to perform celebrations often or for the most part or permanently, it [the decision] is decided by the major superiors both by the juridical norm and according to the particular laws and statutes of the community.

This is important, as it necessarily addresses the question of religious orders. They too may have the Traditional Mass. If the superior wishes to allow it frequently, or make the order a Tridentine order, that is also entirely possible. (Norbertines, I hope you are paying attention).

Art. 4. Ad celebrationes sanctae Missae de quibus supra in art. 2 admitti possunt, servatis de iure servandis, etiam christifideles qui sua sponte id petunt.

Concerning the celebrations of Holy Mass from above in article 2, even Christ's faithful who ask it of their own accord may be admitted, providing the law is observed.

This clarifies article 2 somewhat. A priest can say this Mass anywhere, and we can attend. It is not as if the MP is saying that priests may only say this Mass privately, they may do so publicly in a Church, or in a private home. Its not like the indult that Bugnini allowed for England in the 70's which said that only an old priest could say the old Mass, and then only privately.

This is the end of part I. As time frees itself up I will come up with more, and an unofficial translation of the document.

Juventutem WYD 2008 Draft Liturgical Programe

2007-07-09T00:25:00.000+08:00

[Taken from NLM]
Included in their program will be daily masses, including a Pontifical Requiem Mass, Vespers and Compline.

More information: Latest News - Liturgical Programme

It would be wonderful to be there.

Pope broadens access to 1962 Mass (news/analysis)

2007-07-08T16:27:00.000+08:00

by Phil Lawler

Vatican, Jul. 7, 2007 (CWNews.com) - With a motu proprio entitled Summorum Pontificum, made public on July 7, Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) has provided for a much broader use of the Roman Missal of 1962, explaining that he hopes to encourage "interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."

The long-awaited motu proprio, which had been the subject of intensive speculation within the Church for more than a year, gives every priest the right to celebrate the Mass using the 1962 Missal, and instructs pastors to "willingly accept" requests from the faithful for access to the older liturgical form.

The motu proprio sets forth new norms for the Roman liturgy, superseding the norms previously established by Pope John Paul II (bio - news) in his own motu proprio of 1988, Ecclesia Dei. The new canonical norms established by Pope Benedict will take effect on September 14.

Pope Benedict emphasizes that there are not two different rites, but two different forms of the Roman rite: the ordinary form, according to the current Roman Missal, and the extraordinary form, which uses the Missal that was in universal use prior to the liturgical changes that followed the Second Vatican Council.

The full text of Summorum Pontificum can be found in the original Latin on the Vatican web site. An unofficial English translation is also available.

Pope Benedict issued this motu proprio-- the 5th such document of his pontificate-- along with a letter to the world's bishops explaining the move. The text of the Pope's letter is also available on the Vatican web site.

In his explanatory letter the Holy Father acknowledges that some bishops expressed strong opposition to the release of the motu proprio. Their opposition, he writes in his explanatory letter, was based on fears that the wider use of the pre-conciliar liturgy could appear to undermine the authority of Vatican II, and/or cause divisions with the Catholic Church. These fears will prove unfounded, Pope Benedict says, if the faithful recognize the two forms of the Roman rite as equally valid forms of the same universal liturgy.

The Pope also acknowledges that some Catholics find a greater sense of reverence in the older liturgy-- in what will now be known as the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. He voices the hope that "the two forms of the usage of the Roman rite can be mutually enriching," suggesting that the simultaneous existence of the two different forms will encourage an organic development of new liturgical practices, stimulating "the reform of the reform."

Why it was needed

From the first days of his pontificate, Benedict XVI has emphasized the continuity of the Catholic tradition, insisting that the teachings of Vatican II must be interpreted in light of the constant teachings of the Church in the preceding centuries. With Summorum Pontificum he applies that same rule to the Roman liturgy-- and provides new norms of canon law to carry out that rule.

Even before he became Pope Benedict XVI, in his many written works on the liturgy, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger remarked that the Novus Ordo liturgy was not the organic reform that had been recommended by Vatican II, but a break in continuity-- a new form that had been imposed upon the faithful, while the old order of the Mass was abruptly discarded. In the opening passage of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict indirectly refers to that complaint when he says that the universal Church must uphold "the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition."

These traditions, the Pope continues, "are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi).” Because the old Latin liturgy nourished the faithful for centuries, he reasons, it is incumbent upon the Church today to ensure that "this liturgical edifice, so to speak, might once again appear splendid in its dignity and harmony.”

While recognizing the glory of the older liturgical forms, Pope Benedict also frankly alludes to the chaos that has followed the liturgical changes of Vatican II. In his letter to the world's bishops the Pontiff reminds them that he has lived through the era of change-- indeed he was one of the champions of liturgical reform as envisioned by the Council-- and seen the uneven and sometimes appalling results. He remarks, "I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."

With his motu proprio the Holy Father hopes to restore reverence through a wider use of the "extraordinary form" of the liturgy-- the Mass of the 1962 Missal. At the same time, it is clear, he hopes that the wider use of the old form, with its scrupulous attention to rubrics, will encourage a more faithful and reverent approach to the ordinary form in the Novus Ordo Muss.

What is new?

Summorum Pontificum states flatly that the old form of the Mass, the 1962 Missal, was never abrogated. Implicitly the Pope is recognizing that many faithful Catholics have suffered a grave injustice, since they were told that the old form of the liturgy was now forbidden.

At present-- until the new norms established in the motu proprio take effect on September 14-- Catholics who seek access to the old Mass must petition their diocesan bishop, who may grant permission of the use of the 1962 Missal, under the terms of Pope John Paul's Ecclesia Dei-- or he may choose not to allow it.

With his new norms Pope Benedict recognizes that many bishops have not allowed the "wide and generous" access to the old form that his predecessor had encouraged. Citing St. Paul's words to the Corinthians (2 Cor 6), the Pope now exhorts all bishops: "Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows."

But Pope Benedict goes beyond exhortation, and establishes the rights of the faithful in terms of canon law. Every priest has the right to use the "extraordinary form," and needs no further permission. Wherever a "stable group" of parishioners asks for the old Mass, their pastor should "willingly accept" their request, the Pope adds.

In short, whereas Ecclesia Dei treated the celebration of old Mass as an unusual concession that the diocesan bishop could grant, Summorum Pontificum establishes the "extraordinary form" as a normal usage of the Roman rite. For the past two decades the presumption has been that the 1962 Missal could not be used, and the bishop has had the authority to make exceptions to that norm. Now the presumption is that the 1962 Missal can be used, and bishops have the burden of explaining why it should not be available-- as, for instance, when no priest is adequately qualified to celebrate the old Mass.

If the faithful do not have access to the "extraordinary form," because of particular circumstances in their parishes, Pope Benedict says that they should approach the bishop. And if their bishop does not satisfy their request, he invites them to bring their problem to the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei commission-- where, one assumes, they will find a sympathetic hearing.

Pope Benedict does insist that priests who use the extraordinary form of the Mass should recognize the validity of the new liturgy. He writes that "priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books." However, he allows for the celebration of the other sacraments-- confirmation, ordination, weddings and funerals-- according to the old rubrics.

The Pope stipulates that the "extraordinary form" of the Mass should be celebrated using the Roman Missal of 1962-- that is, in accordance with the old liturgical calendar. He does suggest that the readings from Scripture could be done in the vernacular. Otherwise he makes no change in the old liturgy.

The Pope allows for the possibility that some "personal parishes" will be created in which the old liturgy is the regular usage. He allows religious institutes to choose the old liturgy for their own communities. In ordinary parishes he envisions the use of the "extraordinary form" for one Sunday Mass. He stipulates that the 1962 Missal should not be used for the Easter Triduum in parishes, since during the Triduum the entire parish is drawn together for the celebration in the ordinary form.

What the motu proprio is not

Because much coverage of the motu proprio has been misleading-- especially in the secular media-- it is important to be clear about several things that Summorum Pontificum does not do, and several effects that the Holy Father obviously does not intend:

The motu proprio does not restore the use of Latin to the liturgy. Priests have always had the right to use Latin in celebrating the Novus Ordo liturgy-- the "ordinary" form of the Roman rite. Indeed the use of Latin has always been strongly encouraged by the Vatican, even if few pastors have responded.

The motu proprio does not require priests to use the older liturgy. Pope Benedict is not imposing any new liturgical forms; he is allowing the faithful to make use of an old form-- which, as he carefully points out, was never banned. Those lay Catholics who prefer the post-conciliar liturgy have no cause for concern; the new liturgy will remain the commonplace experience in most parishes.

The Pope is not aiming this document solely at reconciliation of the alienated traditionalists in groups such as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)-- although he recognizes that the revival of the old liturgy will be viewed by traditionalists as a positive sign. Summorum Pontificum is intended for the entire Catholic Church, not for a small, disaffected minority. The restoration of the Latin Mass has been only one of several demands consistently made by SSPX leaders, and the motu proprio will not bridge the gap that separates them from the Holy See. Pope Benedict recognizes this fact in the letter that accompanies the document. He writes: "We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level." And in the first formal response to the motu proprio from the SSPX leadership, Bishop Bernard Fellay, while welcoming the document, confirmed that it was not enough to bring about reconciliation. Bishop Fellay told his followers that the Pope's explanatory letter "does not conceal that difficulties still remain." The SSPX leader voiced his hope that the new policies "would allow for a calmer approach to the doctrinal questions that are at issue-- after the removal of the decree of excommunications that still affects the SSPX bishops."

The motu proprio does not prescribe policies for a 3-year trial period. Although the Pope encourages bishops to report on their experiences with the new norms after 3 years, he gives no indication that the policies will be subject to change after that interval.

The document does not restore the use of language that Jewish leaders have found offensive. Stories that spread quickly through the secular press, based on confused reporting, predicted that Jewish people would be shocked by the liturgical changes. Those stories were wholly inaccurate; the language in question was never a factor in the Pope's decision.

Future tests

Pope Benedict is not the first Pontiff to authorize wider use of the 1962 Missal. Pope John Paul II called for a "wide and generous" application of the indult he provided in Ecclesia Dei in 1988. But that "wide and generous" application was not forthcoming from the world's bishops. In all too many cases the bishops discourage the use of the old liturgy, and offer permission only under very limited circumstances-- in some cases clearly hoping to make it inconvenient for the faithful to attend the Latin Mass.

During the last year many bishops-- especially in France, Germany, the US, and Great Britain-- actively opposed the Pope's plan to release Summorum Pontificum. Will their resistance now manifest itself within their own dioceses, despite the Pope's extra efforts to answer their concerns?

The motu proprio gives diocesan bishops far less discretion in enforcing the liturgical norms, since the Pope emphasizes that priests have the right to celebrate the older form of the Mass without any special permission. The practical test of the motu proprio, then, may be whether bishops put pressure on their priests to discourage the extraordinary form.

Informed sources believe that the Pope plans to augment the authority of the Ecclesia Dei commission, enabling that Vatican bureau to answer complaints about resistance to the motu proprio as well as to help with its implementation. No doubt the powers of that pontifical commission will be tested soon after the September 14 date when the new norms go into effect.

In America, the liturgy committee of the US bishops' conference has already released a special newsletter dedicated to Summorum Pontificum, including both the papal documents themselves and a series of questions and answers about the new norms and the extraordinary form of the liturgy. Particularly in light of the hostility that the US bishops' committee has sometimes exhibited toward liturgical norms from Rome, the newsletter offers a remarkably even-handed and sympathetic perspective on the motu proprio.

In particular it is gratifying to read that the US bishops' liturgy committee recognizes the many Catholics have been troubled by the Novus Ordo liturgy because of "the false sense of creativity unfortunately practiced by some in the celebration of the post-conciliar liturgical rites." Citing the words of Pope Benedict, the newsletter notes that this "creative" approach has led to "deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear." Insofar as the US bishops are now officially recognizing that experimentation has deformed the liturgy, Summorum Pontificum is already yielding rich fruit.

To be fair one must acknowledge that although many bishops have shown themselves unfriendly toward tradition-minded Catholics-- despite the pleas of John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei-- some traditionalists have been every bit as unfriendly in their attitude toward their bishops. Some traditionalists pounce on any opportunity to criticize the new liturgy, and a few-- a minority, certainly, but a very outspoken and divisive minority-- question whether the Novus Ordo liturgy is valid. The response to Summorum Pontificum in traditionalist circles will be another key test. If the motu proprio is warmly welcomed, that positive response might encourage bishops toward a generous implementation; if traditionalists fall into a pattern of carping criticism, bishops will feel that their hostility is justified.

In his explanatory letter, Pope Benedict is writing to bishops, not to lay traditionalists. So he can only urge the bishops to make an extra effort to accommodate reasonable requests. "It is true," he concedes, that there have been and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these."

The "reform of the reform"

Perhaps the most intriguing line in the Pope's explanatory letter accompanying the motu proprio comes immediately after he notes that "the two forms of the usage of the Roman rite can be mutually enriching." The Pope says that new Prefaces, and celebrations for some new saints, should be added to the 1962 Missal. Then he adds: "The Ecclesia Dei ommission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

That passage confirms that Pope Benedict sees Summorum Pontificum as one necessary step in a long-term reform of the liturgy. He apparently hopes that some elements of the new Novus Ordo liturgy will be integrated into the old Mass, while as some aspects of the extraordinary form will enrich the ordinary. In the long term, one suspects, the Pope sees a convergence of the two forms, bringing about the true organic reform of the liturgy that Vatican II envisioned.

"In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture," the Pope writes. "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

Juventutem Rection to Summorum Pontificum

2007-07-08T14:16:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Federatio Internationalis Juventutem]

The Juventutem International Federation expresses all its gratitude to the Common Father Pope Benedict XVI for the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. In the cover letter to the bishops we read with emotion the following quote where the impact of the Gregorian Mass on "young persons" is described as the element having played a decisive part in improving the answer to the need for a clearer juridical regulation on the traditional Roman liturgy. Juventutem gives thanks to God for having been able to bear witness to the permanent value and power of sanctification of the Gregorian liturgy among today's youths:

"Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio."

We haven't forgotten that already in 2005 Pope Benedict XVI prayed for Juventutem:

"From protocol N. 11.234, from the Secretary of State dated July 22, 2005, addressed to Juventutem General Delegate:"The Holy Father has been informed that the Juventutem delegation will attend World Youth Day 2005 in Cologne. Please be assured that His Holiness is praying for all the groups who will gather for this significant occasion. With every good wish (...)".

Juventutem feels all the more encouraged to continue helping with the sanctification of youth worldwide through the Roman traditions of the Catholic Church.

Reactions by Cardinal Richard

2007-07-08T08:03:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]
An APCOM story has Card. Ricard of Bordeaux saying that Summorum Pontificum produces "neither winners nor losers".

Sound familiar?

Other highlights of the interview with Card. Ricard in the French weekly Famille Chretienne. With my interlinear comments.

1. The Pope knew that some people would worry about this.
And he did it anyway. Let us remember that in ancient times, the doctor didn’t stop cutting just because the patient was screaming and begging him to stop. This is for our own good.

2. Not all priests are adequately prepared for this. They lack formation.
Priests are smart. We can learn. I will teach any priest how to say the older Mass and help him with Latin. This is not astrophysics.

3. Books are lacking.
Print new ones? We have the resources of entire conferences of bishops to back this initiative if the spirit of this MP is embraced.

4. Priests will have to prepare two homilies.
How ‘bout… make ‘em a little shorter?

5. The Cardinal is worried that people in general and priests won’t understand why this was done.
Hmmm… tough one. If only someone in a position of authority could speak to people from, say, a pulpit, publish bulletins and articles, speak with the media, hold conferencs and classes. Hmmm… who could do such a thing.

6. The Pope’s motive was reconciliation.
I hope that means also that the opponents of the MP are now reconciled to the idea that it is reality. Seriously, this is not just a matter of arguing and proposing laws. This is a matter of opening hearts. We must work now to open hearts on all sides. This is everyone’s job.

7. The Cardinal is not worried about the authority of bishops being diminished.
I think we all know that this was the real problem in most cases of opposition.

8. Parish priests will bear the brunt of the new work this creates.
What’s new? I hope and pray that lay people will not put their priests in impossible situations. That they will treat the priests well and keep the kvetching to a minimum.

9. This document will create difficulites for the followers of the SSPX
Nothing new there. But the door is open. People of good will will step to the threshold.

Interview with Bishop Rifan

2007-07-08T07:59:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Rorate Caeli]
In January 2002, Pope John Paul II established the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, a Particular Church for the clergy and the faithful attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite with the same area as that of the Diocese of Campos, in Brazil. For the past five years, as Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos declared in his address to the Bishops of Latin America in Aparecida, Brazil, the Campos experiment has allowed the Holy See to display to the world the possibility of a full peaceful cohabitation of the Catholic faithful attached to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (the Diocese of Campos) and those attached to the "Forma Extraordinaria" of the Rite, the names used by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, published today.

The Apostolic Administrator of the Campos Apostolic Administration, Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan, granted RORATE CÆLI an exclusive interview which will be published in two installments. Today, a day of celebration, we present the first part, which deals with his general impressions regarding Summorum Pontificum and lessons from Campos, as well as with the SSPX.

RORATE CÆLI: Bishop Fernando Rifan, thank you for accepting our invitation. Summorum Pontificum has finally been published. How long have you waited for it?

Bishop Fernando Rifan: We have been waiting for this document since the creation of our Personal Apostolic Administration Saint John Mary Vianney. That is, we hoped that the immense benefit which had been granted to us could spread throughout the world and that all could profit from this great treasure which is the ancient form of the Roman Rite.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said in Aparecida that the Campos experience was an example of peaceful coexistence for the Catholic world. Could you tell us what the relationship between both communities is like, in some detail?

Cardinal Castrillon said in his pronouncement before the CELAM that "The Holy Father's project has been partly proved in Campos, where the peaceful coexistence of the two forms of the only Roman Rite in the Church is a beautiful reality. We hope that this example will also bear fruit in other places of the Church where Catholic faithful with diverse liturgical sensibilities live together." There is a good communal and cordial relationship between both bishops, the one of the Apostolic Administration and the diocesan Bishop, Dom Roberto Gomes Guimarães. Mutual consultations, frequent visits. For important ceremonies in the Cathedral, Dom Roberto invites me, and I attend. Last year, I gave the inaugural philosophy class at the diocesan seminary. One of the priests of the Administration is a Latin professor in the diocesan seminary. At the last priestly ordination in the diocesan Cathedral, it was the choir of the seminarians of the Apostolic Administration which sang the musical parts of the mass in Gregorian chant, at the request of the diocesan seminarians. There is an exchange of apostolates between the priests of the Administration and the Diocese: our priests are invited to aid in hearing confessions in diocesan parishes at certain events. And there is, in general, a good friendly relationship between both clergies, though safeguarding our liturgical identity and our independence.

It has been rumored that you were consulted in the preparatory phases of the creation of what would become the Institut du Bon Pasteur. Is this true? Were you ever consulted in during the preparatory phases of Summorum Pontificum?

In the creation of the Institute of the Good Shepherd, I attempted to give all my support. The priests who had left the Fraternity of Saint Pius X wished to regularize their situation. They asked for our support. I went to France, presented them to Cardinal Ricard, of Bordeaux, who received them very well knowing that relations were shaken before. I introduced them to the Nuncio in Paris, to the Bishop of Chartres, in whose diocese they have their seminary, and I visited the Archbishop of Paris to speak of the matter. I believe that I thus attempted to open the doors for the establishment of the Institute of the Good Shepherd. As for our contribution to the motu proprio, our very existence and our good relations spoke in favor of it.

Are you concerned that the kind of liturgical abuse so prevalent in the celebrations according to the Missal of Paul VI may affect the Traditional Mass? How is it possible to avoid this from happening?

No. Precisely, one of the reasons for which we prefer and adopt the Traditional Mass is because its structure and form of celebration exempts it from such abuses. The best way to avoid them is the preservation of the Traditional Mass in all its purity, sobriety, respect, sacredness, and solemnity. The rubrics of the Traditional Mass are very rigorous and do not allow for creativity and inventiveness.

From your past experience, and considering your knowledge of your fellow Bishops in the Brazilian Episcopal Conference, what do you believe will be the reception of the papal document in Brazil? Will Bishops establish obstacles to those priests and groups of faithful who wish to see the new papal directive implemented? Do you believe there will be an increase in the interest and demand for the Traditional Mass in Brazil? On a practical side, is the Apostolic Administration planning any formal effort to train priests to say the Traditional Mass?

As Cardinal Castrillon said in his talk to the CELAM, due to the influence of our Apostolic Administration, "some Brazilian dioceses have contacted the Campos Apostolic Administration, which has allowed some of their priests to give pastoral care to the traditionalist faithful in their local churches." We have 13 dioceses offering the Traditional Mass in Brazil already. There will be hardships. But it will be much easier [with the motu proprio]. I am aware of Bishops who are waiting only for the Motu Proprio to liberate the Mass in their dioceses. And I believe that many groups will achieve it. We receive visits from many priests wishing to learn how to celebrate the Traditional Mass. We have even made a didactic DVD to teach priests how to celebrate Mass the Traditional way.

How is the construction of your new seminary coming along? Do you have seminarians from other Brazilian dioceses and from foreign countries?

The building of our new Seminary is coming along. We expect to move there next year, even though it will be only half done. We need help. We have some seminarians from other dioceses, but the majority are from here [Campos]. At this time we have 30 seminarians. The new seminary will have room for 80 students.

You have visited and traveled across the United States: do you believe that there is a potential for growth of the Mass in the U.S. or do you believe that there is a low interest for the Mass in America?

The United States is maybe, next to France, the country with the greatest interest in the Traditional Mass. In the United States and Canada there are about 600 places where the Traditional Mass is celebrated. There is a great interest [in the Traditional Mass].

Do you still have friends inside the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX)? If so, what do they tell you about a future reconciliation with the Holy See? Do you believe there is at least a chance for a intermediary stage, something less than a full agreement, particularly after the liberalization of the Traditional Mass?

Yes, some. Some are of the opinion that the reconciliation should be done in groups, each in its own diocese. But, we fear that the hard line will fall away into schism. Maybe the freedom of the Traditional Mass will bring us closer. What is bad is the spirit of criticism, that sees only the negative side of things, and makes everything more difficult. They are not yet conscious of the irregularity of their situation and of the theological necessity of a canonical regularization and the recovery of a perfect communion with the Church.

On a personal note, since you were Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer's secretary for a long time, and particularly looking back at the dramatic events of 1988, what would a motu proprio like Summorum Pontificum have meant to Bishop de Castro Mayer?

I sincerely believe that he would very happy. Dom Castro Mayer was always a man of the Church, very faithful to its Magisterium. One must only see the body of his written work to arrive at that conclusion. And, on the day of my Episcopal Ordination, I said, in the presence of Cardinal Castrillon and of all the bishops who were there, that our regularization signified, also, the reestablishment of Dom Castro de Mayer, upon which I was applauded, including by them [the bishops].

Brief Summary of Pre & Post Motu Proprio Scenarios

2007-07-08T07:47:00.000+08:00

[Taken from NLM]
With such an important development in the Church, it would seem appropriate to "count our blessings" by quickly summarizing the PRE and POST Motu Proprio scenarios as we can now see them.

PRE-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum generally thought of as abolished/abrogated -- even though debated by some in small circles.

POST-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum clarified to have never been abrogated.

PRE-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum an "indult" or special exemption to normative law.

POST-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum a 'normal' liturgical use of the one Roman rite.

PRE-MP: All public or private celebrations of the 1962 Missale Romanum required the approval of the Ordinary. Ditto for other sacraments.

POST-MP: All public or private celebrations of the 1962 Missale Romanum (and associated sacraments) are left to the determination of the priest; the faithful are empowered to approach the priest for it and use the Bishop or Ecclesia Dei commission for appeal if need be to have their request fulfilled; priests and bishops are effectively asked to comply or to bring in any resources necessary to help do so.

PRE-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum "frozen" in its development, "as-is".

POST-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum "unfrozen" allowing, through the direction of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, organic liturgical development to resume. Possible addition of new prefaces. Allowance for option of direct usage of vernacular for Epistle and Gospel readings.

PRE-MP: Personal parishes may be setup by the bishop for the concentrated use of the classical use of the Roman rite. Clergy from such groups may also be brought in to offer said use.

POST-MP: Ditto. That remains the same -- though again, not in replacement of its use at any or all other parishes it should be reminded. It is not a matter of "we have a parish for that, we don't need it elsewhere."

The above are what we might consider the juridical issues of a pre and post MP Church.

But there are also issues of catechesis to be found here. Issues that weren't juridically or formally so, but what we might call issues of confusion or 'perception' with regard to the classical use.

This MP contributes to a clear clarification on the following misperceptions:

PRE-MP: 'Popular' perception of the classical use as being outside of normal parish activity. Often limited to Sundays and sometimes Holy days. Faithful often told to go to "their parishes" for other sacraments.

POST-MP: Affirmation of the use of the classical use for weekdays, Sundays, solemnities, special-event or 'one-off' liturgies, as well as the ability of the priest to use any of the previous sacramental forms. Further affirmation of the use of the classical liturgy is also fine for public parish liturgy, while keeping sensitive to pastoral considerations. It need not be "special" or merely private in that regard.

PRE-MP: 'Popular' perception that the classical use of the Roman rite was either, "not encouraged" or seen as pseudo-disobedient, or anti-Conciliar.

POST-MP: It should be clear now that adherence to such is not anti-Conciliar as the Pope has pointed out. Moreover, it cannot be understood as "not encouraged." It is a normal, extraordinary expression of the Roman rite.

Overall, the significant, general shift in the post-MP Church is of course the de-marginalization of the Roman liturgical tradition and a re-assertion of a hermeneutic of continuity.

Clearly, the document is an important development for both those attached to the classical use and pursuing the reform of the reform.

ICRSS Press Release

2007-07-08T07:44:00.000+08:00

[Taken from NLM]
Te Deum in Thanksgiving for the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum Cura at the Solemn High Mass this Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 10:am!

Dear faithful and friends of St. Francis de Sales Oratory,

It is with profound gratitude and spiritual joy that we learned today about the publication of Pope Benedict XVI's Apostolic Letter Summorum Ponitficum. This Apostolic Letter given on the Holy Father's own initiative (motu proprio) expresses the great pastoral care, love and understanding of our beloved Pope not only for the faithful attached to the classic form of the Latin Liturgy, but to the unbroken tradition of Holy Mother Church. In his document the Holy Father underlines the importance and the normality of the presence of the traditional liturgy in the Church for its vitality: "...The sacred liturgy according to the Roman manner made fertile not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. Moreover it is evident that the Latin Liturgy in its various forms has stimulated in the spiritual life very many Saints in every century of the Christian age and strengthened in the virtue of religion so many peoples and made fertile their piety."

We are particularly blessed in St. Louis because our beloved Archbishop has shared this intention of the Holy Father already for a long time and in a certain way also anticipated it by the foundation of St. Francis de Sales Oratory, which he entrusted to the pastoral care of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. Most recently the Archbishop expressed again his esteem for the traditional forms of liturgy when he ordained two new priests for our Institute three weeks ago at the Cathedral Basilica.

Therefore, the publication of the Motu Proprio is a great occasion of thanksgiving for the generosity of our shepherds and for the fact that the richness of the Church's tradition has been brought back to the daily life of the Church. This Sunday, July 8, at the end of the 10 am Solemn High Mass we will sing the Te Deum, the great thanksgiving hymn of the Church. We invite you to join us on this occasion. Your presence would be a strong sign of esteem for the Holy Father and our Archbishop, but also to the work of our institute and its superiors who have shared the intentions of the Holy Father when they were not as common in the church as they are today.

It is a particular joy, that the Holy Father quotes in his Motu Proprio several times St. Prosper of Aquitaine (ca. 390-455), patron of Catholic writers and journalists, whose relics are venerated at St. Francis de Sales Oratory . The Motu Proprio quotes several times one of St. Prosper’s most famous aphorisms: Lex orandi - lex credendi, the order of prayer is the order of faith, which reflects the inner and reciprocal unity between the liturgy as the prayer of the whole Church and the identity of the Church in its faith: "As from time immemorial so in the future the principle shall be respected “according to which each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi).”"

Benedict XVI Liberalizes the Ancient Rite of the Mass – And Explains Why

2007-07-08T07:42:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Chiesa]
ROMA, July 7, 2007 – The highly anticipated papal “motu proprio” on the rite of the Mass prior to the reform of 1970 was made public today, together with a letter of explanation from Benedict XVI to the bishops.

The two documents were sent a few days earlier, in secret, to all the presidents of the episcopal conferences and to all the nuncios, who saw to sending them along to all the bishops of the world.

The “motu proprio” is in Latin. It will come into effect on September 14, 2007.

The new rules fixed by Benedict XVI widen the permission to celebrate the Mass according to the liturgical books published by John XXIII in 1962, while leaving in place as the “ordinary” form of celebration in the Catholic churches the one established by Paul VI in 1970.

The Mass according to the liturgical books of 1962 is celebrated in Latin, but with the option of reading the Gospel and the other readings in modern languages. Nothing is said in the 1962 missal about the orientation of the altar and the celebrant, whether these should face the people or not.

The two forms of the Mass, the “ordinary” one of 1970 and the “extraordinary” one of 1962 follow slightly different calendars. The selections from the Gospel and the other readings also do not coincide. But such differences are not unusual in the Catholic liturgy. The Ambrosian rite used in the archdiocese of Milan also has a its own calendar, lectionary, and ritual. For example, Advent begins six Sundays before Christmas, instead of four, as in the Roman rite. The sign of peace is placed before the offertory, instead of before communion.

The missal of 1962, the only one authorized for those who wish to celebrate the Mass according to the ancient rite, does not contain the prayer “pro perfidis Judaeis” – which properly means: “for the Jews who do not believe [in Jesus Christ]” – nor other formulas that have today become objects of criticism, these having been modified already by John XXIII. Nor do these formulas exist in the baptismal ritual preceding Vatican Council II: this ritual, too, is authorized by the “motu proprio.”

In the accompanying letter, Benedict XVI asks the bishops to provide an evaluation after three years, in order to seek out solutions if “serious difficulties” surface.

Summorum Pontificum Commentary & Analysis

2007-07-08T07:40:00.000+08:00

[Taken from NLM]
Here is a non-official English translation provided off the Vatican website. Comments throughout the text in bold. When the official translation comes, we shall re-analyze for any substantive changes in wording.

Following this commentary, I will be creating an overall summary of the before and after situation. This will likely come later today or this evening.

MOTU PROPRIO "SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM"

"Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, 'to the praise and glory of His name,' and 'to the benefit of all His Holy Church.'

"Since time immemorial it has been necessary - as it is also for the future - to maintain the principle according to which 'each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.' (1)

"Among the pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their Rule that 'nothing should be placed before the work of God.' In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms [NLM: a reference to the liturgical rites and uses in the Latin rite], in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety.

"Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and 'renewed in accordance with the norms of the Fathers,' and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

"One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times. [NLM: reference to organic development of course.]

"'It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform.' (2) Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X (3), Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.

"In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that 'this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.' (4)

"But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult 'Quattuor abhinc anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given as Motu Proprio, 'Ecclesia Dei,' exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.

"Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following: [NLM: here we go...]

"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

"It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents 'Quattuor abhinc annis' and 'Ecclesia Dei,' are substituted as follows:

"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary. [NLM: Private masses. See article 4 for further context. As regards the Paschal Triduum, this is evidently intended to protect the integrity of that season. It isn't suggesting that the classical liturgical books cannot themselves be (publically) used during the Triduum, or that the modern one's must. What would dictate that are the normal pastoral considerations mentioned within this document.]

"Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues. [NLM: This would apply to groups like the ICRSS, FSSP, etc. of course.]

"Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted. [NLM: One might think of this as the "associate pastor" clause. In short, the faithful can attend the private masses of a priest, which the priest can pursue at his own discretion without any need for permission. This would be particularly effectual where we are dealing with an associate pastor who cannot make formal decisions about the public masses of a parish.]

"Art. 5. õ 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful [NLM: note that is undefined and therefore at the discretion of the pastor] who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests [NLM: Take note of that...] to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop [NLM: This is a very important point. It might be possible to misinterpret that as meaning the bishop's permission is required. However, given what is said in para. 5, and also given that it is noted that "the pastor should... accept" and particularly given article 7 (see below) that is clearly not the case. It rather simply refers to to the bishop as having a role to generally ensure harmony with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish. This is consistent with what is said of the bishop's role in the explanatory letter.] in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

õ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held. [NLM: this is also important. Presently in practice, such Masses have often been reduced to one on Sundays alone. This is making it clear that celebrating this Missal on weekdays is more than acceptable, and moreover, it is also acceptable that on Sundays and other days of obligation, such as feasts and solemnities, it is not inappropriate for one of the Masses of that schedule to be in the classical use.]

õ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages. [NLM: see the comment above. This is likewise making clear that one must not be limited to the modern use for special-event liturgical occasions like weddings, funerals, etc. In other words, simply because the Pauline missal is the ordinary use of the Roman rite does not mean that in instances where there is a single liturgy occuring, that therefore it must default to the modern use of the Roman rite. Not at all.]

õ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded. [NLM: This is trying to safeguard the quality of celebrations in the classical use. A very good thing. A priest must be able to competently celebrate from those liturgical books. It appears to possibly be left open to the priests discretion to determine if he is so.]

õ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See. [NLM: It is very good to have this clarification. While not mandated, it is now clearly allowable to have the readings sung or chanted directly from the altar -- or otherwise -- in the vernacular (rather than being read again separately) using an approved liturgical edition. The reports that preceeded the public release of this Motu Proprio that suggested this also applied to the optional use of the new lectionary seem off-base. Nothing against the new lectionary of course, but such would clearly present difficulties given differences in the calendars of the liturgical year, and also the fact that, structurally, the classical use is basd upon an Epistle and Gospel with no additional reading. Therefore, so far as I can see, 'editions' intends to refer to vernacular translations approved by the Holy See, based upon the cycle of readings found in the 1962 Missale Romanum, and not rather the new lectionary.]

"Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 õ 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor [NLM: this clarifies absolutely that the permission of the bishop is not required for use of the 1962 Missale Romanum in a public celebration in the parish. See aforementioned article and paragraph.], they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei". [NLM: in other words, if there aren't local diocesan clergy available or competent.]

"Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to obtain counsel and assistance.

"Art. 9. õ 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it. [NLM: All previous ritual forms of the sacaments may be used at the priests discretion, though the modern forms of the ritual are yet still normative of course.]

õ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

õ 2 Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

"Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law. [NLM: so again, the likes of a Mater Ecclesiae in Berlin, NJ may also be established, or an FSSP or ICRSS parish and so forth. Of course, this does not come at the expense of less concentrated celebrations in other parishes of a diocese, which are left to the priest's discretion or the request of the faithful. It is not, either-or in that particular sense, though it is not both-and in the sense that the bishop does not have to erect such personal parishes either of course. Such a matter is up to the bishop, unlike the other matter.]

"Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", erected by John Paul II in 1988 (5), continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

"Art. 12. This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions. [NLM: So that commission now has a new role as caretaking that these norms are followed through faithfully.]

"We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.

" From Rome, at St. Peter's, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate." (1) General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, no. 397. (2) John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," 4 December 1988, 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.

(3) Ibid. (4) St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Motu propio data, "Abhinc duos annos," 23 October 1913: AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," no. 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899. (5) Cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio data "Ecclesia Dei," 2 July 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.
BXVI-MP/.../SUMMORUM PONTIFICUMVIS 070707 (1900)

NLM General Summary and Conclusions

The classical form of the Roman rite is freed!

a. The use of the 1962 Missale Romanum is no longer an indult or exemption from the law. It was never abrogated and therefore, never needed an exemption in point of fact.

b. The classical missal may be used by any priest privately, including with the faithful present, at his own discretion. No permission is required.

c. The classical Roman missal may be used for public parish Masses at the discretion of the parish priest without permission of the bishop (though always with a pastoral sense of course).

d. It may likewise be used for special event liturgies, during weekdays and on Sundays and Solemnities.

e. The bishop's role changes now to one who simply takes a pastoral role as with any other issue in a diocese, but he is also bound by these norms as explained in the explanatory letter.

f. The Ecclesia Dei commission now also takes a role of helping to resolve disputes.

g. Apostolic societies and personal parishes continue to operate as normal, established by the bishop, and priest of the aforesaid can, as usual, be brought in to help celebrate such liturgies where there is not one available or competent to do so locally.

Official FSSP Reaction

2007-07-07T23:15:00.000+08:00

[Taken from De Fide Catholica]
FSSP International Headquarters Communiqué (on 7.VII.2007)

We rejoice at the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. In reaffirming the essential place of the liturgy itself in the transmission of the faith, in stating that the Missal of Blessed John XXIII may be used by all priests, and especially in encouraging the use of all four liturgical books in force in 1962, the text opens to the whole Church the treasures of these rites.

We unite our prayers with all the Church that, the document having been received with generous and pastoral hearts, those who prefer this usage might have access to the full Catholic life according to this ‘extraordinary form’ of the Roman Rite.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter will continue to look to serve the needs of the Church, and hopes that the success of the chapels and parishes already erected in the last 19 years in so many dioceses will provide encouraging examples for the document’s implementation.

Our deepest gratitude to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum.

Initial Thoughts on the Explanatory Letter

2007-07-07T23:12:00.000+08:00

[Taken from NLM]
I. The Council

The Pope of course begins by addressing the fear, even claim, of some that this represents a rejection of the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, this is something that some of our more radical traditionalist adherents might call a hope. However, as the Pope says, "this is unfounded."

Anyone with familiarity of Benedict's thought of course knows that he is not about the rejection of the Council, but rather about its proper implementation in a hermeneutic of continuity.

II. The Pre and Post-Conciliar Missals and a clarification upon how we are to think of them

Three points come out here. One is the confirmation of the idea of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms of the Roman rite. This has been discussed for some time of course.

Perhaps the most significant point in this section in this statement however: "It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite."

In this regard then, however we personally refer to the 1962 Missale Romanum and the Pauline, we should probably change our terminology from that of "rite" (e.g. classical Roman rite/modern Roman rite/Tridentine rite etc.) to speak rather of a "use" - 'classical Roman use' or 'classical use of the Roman rite' and so forth.

III. The Status of the 1962 Missale Romanum

In another very important clarification, the Holy Father has confirmed and closed the debate on the issue of the abrogation of the 1962 Missale Romanum:

"...the 1962 Missal... was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted."

(Defintion: Abrogation = the total abolition of a law)

"...the Missal published by Paul VI... is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy."

"The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration."

IV. The SSPX and Other Groups Attached to the Classical Use of the Roman Rite

"Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."

The Pope is here distinguishing, of course, between the SSPX, who broke full communion and other groups who remain in full communion. But it should be noted that he is making a distiction first off.

Two reasons are presented for this attachment, and I think this is worth noting, even though it is a small point.

One is critique of the way in which much post-conciliar liturgy has been characterized, which the Pope speaks of "from experience" as "arbitrary deformations". This reasoning pertains very much to a need for a reform of the reform.

The other reason, however, is tha there are those attached to the classical use, not simply because of the way in which the post-conciliar liturgy manifested itself in practice, but because "...the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration."

I see this as important because it is recognizing two important streams. On the one hand, the necessity of a reform of the reform and the harm that has been caused by the post-conciliar implementation of the liturgical reform in parish practice.

The second, however is that this is not the sole reason for attachment and value to be assigned to the classical use of the Roman rite. Indeed, with "notable liturgical formation" that traditional expression is valued in its own right by many people. In other words, it is not simply a "negative" attachment limited to the problem of abuses.

V. The Previous Motu Proprio: Ecclesia Dei adflicta

"...the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations."

VI. The Question of Division

"In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded."

VII. The Missal of 1962 Unfrozen

"...the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

First, we gain another new term: usus antiquior for the classical or ancient use.

Some traditionalists will be very wary, or even oppose this, but it must be said that this is a very desireable development and perhaps more than anything is what helps ensure that the 1962 Missale Romanum is not thought of, or indeed in fact to be, a simple liturgical museum piece that remains without organic developments since 1962.

That such will now be studied more than anything ensures its future as a point of significant influence for a reform of the reform.

Immediately following that statement comes this one:

"The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal."

The Holy Father again touches upon co-existence and how that co-existence can see the reform of the reform aided and advanced. What is clear in this statement, and what the Holy Father continues to drive home, is the need to pursue a hermeneutic of continuity with regard to the celebration of the liturgy of Paul VI; one faithful to its rubrics.

VIII. Organic Development and Co-existence

It must be said that there is something of a challenge to all parties in this document, to pursue a path of co-existence.

"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. [In short, the Pope refers to the fact that there should not be rupture, but rather continuity, organic development and so on.] What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. [Many will recognize this sentiment from his writings as a Cardinal. It is an important point. The liturgical tradition is not to be marginalized. Rupture is not our hermeneutic. We do not simply devalue or throw away our received tradtion.]

This next point is important as well.

"Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."

Evidently, this paragraph will gain some strong reaction from some traditionalists, however, let's look at what is being said. The Pope is not suggesting that groups like the ICRSS and FSSP cannot be primarily dedicated to the classical use of the Roman rite. What he is stating is, as others have wrongly "leper-ized" the 1962 liturgical books, it is also wrong to do likewise in the inverse direction.

A key statement, as I see it in this statement is the issue of "a matter of principle". The FSSP and ICRSS will indeed continue on primarily celebrating the classical use, but the Holy Father is clearly saying that no one should, whatever they do in fact, take an attitude or principle of absolute rejection of the new rite -- to the point that they won't even celebrate it!

This seems to tie in as well to the issue that came up in the famed "protocol 1411" affair, and would certainly tie into events like Chrism masses and so forth. There's nothing wrong with being primarily dedicated to the classical use, and indeed, the reasoned critiques of the liturgical reform are not also excluded from this. The issue is simply about an absolute principle of rejection as though the modern Roman use wasn't a Catholic missal.

IX. The Role of the Bishop

The following is very important and serves to clarify the role of the Bishop. Too often, the idea of the Bishop as Chief liturgist is employed in a way which would make him able to exercise that authority in an arbitrary way; or one that might suggest he is master of the liturgy -- which even the Pope is not.

"Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio."

In short, the bishop's role as chief liturgist in his diocese does not give him the ability to absolve himself from these norms. His role is that of a caretaker and of ensuring that the norms are respected and followed in a peaceable way.

One cannot underestimate the importance of this clarification.

X. The 3 Year Period

We've heard of a three year period. However, this clarifies what that means:

"Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought."

"Ways to remedy" suggests that the norms are not possibly going to be revoked, but rather that workarounds might be sought and found. "Tweaks" if you will.

Concluding Thought

Themes strong in this letter upon my initial reading:

a. Co-existence as important and non-divisive
b. The hermeneutic of continuity to be respected and that of rupture avoided.
c. The liturgical tradition is to be respected, but the new is not be rejected as a point of principle; the good to be recognized.
d. Need for a reform of the reform

Important clarifications/developments:

a. These are not separate rites, but uses of the one Roman rite.
b. After study by the Ecclesia Dei commission, the 1962 Missale Romanum can now be unfrozen; organic development can now continue.
c. Confirmation that the Pope sees this as also helping toward a reform of the reform and a more proper celebration of the modern books in parish life.
d. The 1962 Missal is not abrogated and thus, always permitted.
e. The role of the bishop as chief liturgist is as a servant and caretaker, not a master, and cannot exempt from these regulations.

Summorum Pontificum Summary

2007-07-07T22:11:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]

What this Motu Proprio does

Effectively it levels the playing field for people who want to use the older liturgical forms.

Remember: the MP applies to all the sacraments as they were before the Council, not just Holy Mass. It concerns the liturgy, not just Holy Mass. Thus clerics (bishops, priests, deacons), who are obliged to recite the Liturgy of the Hours can use the older Breviarium Romanum as it was in 1962. Benedict is establishing the older form of liturgy, as in was in 1962, as an extraordinary form (forma extraordinaria). The Novus Ordo of the Roman Missal and all other liturgical books remain the ordinary way of celebrating the liturgy.

“Extraordinary”, here, does NOT mean “rare” or “unusual” or “special”. It simply means “out of the common order”. If we turn to how the Church uses Latin in, for example, a pretty good Latinist, St. Jerome, the adverb extraordinarie means “with excessive frequency” (cf. On Ephesians 1 ad. 2, 13). It cannot be argued legitimately from the word “extraordinary” that use of the older forms must necessarily be “rare”. It can be quite regular, depending on the circumstances, while in the larger scheme of things the Novus Ordo remains now the usual way things are done.

The Motu Proprio responds to THREE GROUPS of people:

1) Followers of the SSPX, for whom this form of Mass is a “mark of identity”, even though there are also deeper theological reasons for that break.

2) There are many lay people who also remember the older form of Mass from before the changes. And you don’t have to be to 80 to remember those days. There are people in the 40’s and 50’s who remember living with the old Mass. They have always remained attached to the old Mass or have regained a longing for it.

3) There are those who were neither in a separated group nor remember the pre-Conciliar Mass. These are younger people who have discovered the older form.

As a result, it is unacceptable to suggest that these provisions were made merely to accomodate a bunch of nostalgic old foggies who can’t get with the program. The provisions were made with anyone in mind who wants older forms, for any decent reason. People who want to avail of this extraordinary use are not second rate citizens.

They may not be treated any longer like the nutty aunt in the attic.

There are a few things to dispell.

In the explanatory letter the Pope invites bishops, “I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.” This does NOT impose an expiration date. What it does is ask for information about what is going on. If, in light of experience, the provisions need to be changed, they can be changed based on experience. However, I hasten to point out to the whiners who will say this weakens the Motu Proprio, that this invitation is NOT in the Motu Proprio itself. I will remind those who see the glass always as half empty that if the experiences are POSITIVE, the provisions could be adjusted positively. So, in a way, it is up to you. Open hearts. Work together. Save the Liturgy – Save the World, as we say around this blog.

The bishops retain authority in their dioceses. Can it be any other way? This is entirely normal, good and proper. However, the Pope has with this Motu Proprio made many things that were once rather vague far more concrete and clear. Remember, bishops can be allies. You must approach them properly, which is only common sense. It may be that Fr. Guido O’Brien at St. Ipsydipsy doesn’t want to or in incapable of celebrating Mass in the old way. In that case, the bishop could be helpful in resolving the dilemma.

Private Masses/liturgies in the old form can’t be celebrated in private in the Triduum. That is normal and reasonable. that is the way it is in the Novus Ordo. In places where the older form is established in a parish for the older use, the Triduum CAN be celebrated with the older books. However, in parishes where the newer forms are the usual fare, and there is a regularly scheduled Mass with the older form, when the Triduum arrives, the older, extraordinary liturgy must give way to the ordinary. That is logical. In the Novus Ordo, as in the older days, there cannot be two Masses of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday, two Good Friday liturgies, or two Vigils. So, in this case, the ordinary takes precedence.

The issue the Triduum and this reasonable restriction has nothing to do with the prayer about the Jews on Good Friday. This is simply a matter of what the Church’s logical practice is based on the sacred nature of those Triduum liturgies. The Jews were not part of the equation. Remember also that the 1962 Missale Romanum is used for the Triduum in those places where it will be permitted to use the older form at that time. The 1962 edition and not some earlier edition before the changes to those Good Friday petitions.

As stated above, the 1962 Missale, the Missal of Bl. John XXIII is to be used, and NOT some earlier edition. Priests who are not adhering to the 1962 rubrics should be now ready and willing to adjust what they are doing. Lay people must be ready and willing to adjust their expectations.

The Motu Proprio does NOT set a minimum number of people who must ask for the older form of Mass before it can be conceded. It does talk about stable groups for regularly scheduled Masses.

Official SSPX Reaction to Motu Proprio

2007-07-07T20:15:00.000+08:00

[http://www.dici.org/accueil.php?loc=US]

By the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI has reinstated the Tridentine Mass in its rights, and clearly affirmed that the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V had never been abrogated. The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X rejoices to see the Church thus regain her liturgical Tradition, and give the possibility of a free access to the treasure of the Traditional Mass for the glory of God, the good of the Church and the salvation of souls, to the priests and faithful who had so far been deprived of it. The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X extends its deep gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this great spiritual benefit.

The letter which accompanies the Motu Proprio does not hide however the difficulties that still remain. The Society of Saint Pius X wishes that the favorable climate established by the new dispositions of the Holy See will make it possible – after the decree of excommunication which still affects its bishops has been withdrawn – to consider more serenely the disputed doctrinal issues.

Lex orandi, lex credendi, the law of the liturgy is that of the faith. In the fidelity to the spirit of our founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the attachment of the Society of Saint Pius X to the traditional liturgy is inseparably united to the faith which has been professed "always, everywhere and by all."

Menzingen, July 7, 2007

Bishop Bernard Fellay

Motu Proprio Released! (Unoffficial English Translation)

2007-07-07T19:54:00.000+08:00

VATICAN CITY, JUL 7, 2007 (VIS) - Given below is a non-official English-language translation of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" of Pope Benedict XVI, "Summorum Pontificum," concerning the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The original text is written in Latin.

"Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, 'to the praise and glory of His name,' and 'to the benefit of all His Holy Church.'

"Since time immemorial it has been necessary - as it is also for the future - to maintain the principle according to which 'each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.' (1)

"Among the pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their Rule that 'nothing should be placed before the work of God.' In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms, in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety.

"Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and 'renewed in accordance with the norms of the Fathers,' and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

"One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times.

"'It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform.' (2) Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X (3), Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.

"In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that 'this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.' (4)

"But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult 'Quattuor abhinc anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given as Motu Proprio, 'Ecclesia Dei,' exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.

"Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:

"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

"It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents 'Quattuor abhinc annis' and 'Ecclesia Dei,' are substituted as follows:

"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

"Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.

"Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

"Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.
§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.
§ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.
§ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.
§ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

"Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".

"Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to obtain counsel and assistance.

"Art. 9. § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.
§ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.
§ 2 Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

"Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

"Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", erected by John Paul II in 1988 (5), continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

"Art. 12. This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.

"We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.

" From Rome, at St. Peter's, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate."

(1) General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, no. 397.
(2) John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," 4 December 1988, 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.
(3) Ibid.
(4) St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Motu propio data, "Abhinc duos annos," 23 October 1913: AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," no. 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.
(5) Cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio data "Ecclesia Dei," 2 July 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.

BXVI-MP/.../SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM VIS 070707 (1900)

Cover Letter to Motu Proprio

2007-07-07T18:10:00.000+08:00

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/20559.php?index=20559〈=en#TESTO%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the "legitimate aspirations" of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: "Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum").

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

Towards Motu Proprio!

2007-07-07T17:10:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Rorate Caeli]
This article, written by one who was actively involved with the development of the text, Father Nicola Bux, in one of his weekly columns for Fides, the news agency of Propaganda Fide, provides important keys for the interpretation and reception of the text, to be made available to the public in a couple of hours:

WORDS OF DOCTRINE: Towards the Motu proprio Rev. Nicola Bux and Rev. Salvatore Vitiello

Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) - The recent announcement of the imminent publication of a Motu proprio on the celebration of the Eucharist according to the rite of what is known as the Saint Pius V Missal approved in the latest edition by Blessed John XXIII, gave rise to keen interest among the media and among the ordinary faithful. Pending its publication very soon, it would seem opportune to illustrate two fundamental aspects of a similar procedure.

A recent text by Nicola Bux and Adriano Garuti bears the title, “Peter loves and unites. The personal responsibility of the Bishop of Rome for the universal Church”. It is precisely from this point of view that the Motu proprio to be shortly made public must be read: a free and sovereign act of a Pontiff who, by right and by the Church's faith in the primacy of Peter, has a personal responsibility which cannot be delegated to others, in the guidance of the universal Church.

Accepting the exercise of this responsibility is an integral part of the acceptance of faith due to the dogma of the primacy of Peter and in this sense calls all Catholics to love, to pray for and to obey the one who is called to be Bishop of Rome, the universal Shepherd of Church.

The Motu proprio should be welcomed by all since it is not a restrictive measure, but rather an 'extension' of options, in keeping with the now familiar Ratzinger line to "extend reason".

No one will be impeded in any way, at the most he will be 'prevented from impeding' celebrations according to the old rite. Down through the centuries the Church has never feared liturgical-ritual differences, as long as they do not signify differences in faith, and she has always tolerated legitimate linguistic, geographical and ritual distinctions, on the simple condition that these expresses the truth faith of the Church.

It is difficult to see why some people, often champions of the most libertarian theories in many other fields, today fear greater freedom in the choice of rite in which to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. A founded impression, that precisely they are the promoters of the pernicious liturgical creativity which too often distorts our rites preventing them from speaking to the People of God.

Who is afraid of freedom? No one, let us hope. The Motu proprio is an act of the personal responsibility of the Pope who is extending the freedom of the Church. [Source]

Motu Proprio Released! (In Latin)

2007-07-07T17:09:00.000+08:00

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_lt.html

LITTERAE APOSTOLICAE
MOTU PROPRIO DATAE

BENEDICTUS XVI

SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM

Ab immemorabili tempore sicut etiam in futurum, principium servandum est «iuxta quod unaquaeque Ecclesia particularis concordare debet cum universali Ecclesia non solum quoad fidei doctrinam et signa sacramentalia, sed etiam quoad usus universaliter acceptos ab apostolica et continua traditione, qui servandi sunt non solum ut errores vitentur, verum etiam ad fidei integritatem tradendam, quia Ecclesiae lex orandi eius legi credendi respondet»[1].

Inter Pontífices qui talem debitam curam adhibuerunt, nomen excellit sancti Gregorii Magni, qui tam fidem catholicam quam thesauros cultus ac culturae a Romanis in saeculis praecedentibus cumulatos novis Europae populis transmittendos curavit. Sacrae Liturgiae tam Missae Sacrificii quam Officii Divini formam, uti in Urbe celebrabatur, definiri conservarique iussit. Monachos quoque et moniales maxime fovit, qui sub Regula sancti Benedicti militantes, ubique simul cum Evangelii annuntiatione illam quoque saluberrimam Regulae sententiam vita sua illustrarunt, «ut operi Dei nihil praeponatur» (cap. 43). Tali modo sacra liturgia secundum morem Romanum non solum fidem et pietatem sed et culturam multarum gentium fecundavit. Constat utique liturgiam latinam variis suis formis Ecclesiae in omnibus aetatis christianae saeculis permultos Sanctos in vita spirituali stimulasse atque tot populos in religionis virtute roborasse ac eorundem pietatem fecundasse.

Ut autem Sacra Liturgia hoc munus efficacius expleret, plures alii Romani Pontifices decursu saeculorum peculiarem sollicitudinem impenderunt, inter quos eminet Sanctus Pius V, qui magno cum studio pastorali, Concilio Tridentino exhortante, totum Ecclesiae cultum innovavit, librorum liturgicorum emendatorum et «ad normam Patrum instauratorum» editionem curavit eosque Ecclesiae latinae usui dedit.

Inter Ritus romani libros liturgicos patet eminere Missale Romanum, quod in romana urbe succrevit, atque succedentibus saeculis gradatim formas assumpsit, quae cum illa in generationibus recentioribus vigente magnam habent similitudinem.

«Quod idem omnino propositum tempore progrediente Pontifices Romani sunt persecuti, cum novas ad aetates accommodaverunt aut ritus librosque liturgicos determinaverunt, ac deinde cum ineunte hoc nostro saeculo ampliorem iam complexi sunt redintegrationem»[2]. Sic vero egerunt Decessores nostri Clemens VIII, Urbanus VIII, sanctus Pius X[3], Benedictus XV, Pius XII et beatus Ioannes XXIII.

Recentioribus autem temporibus, Concilium Vaticanum II desiderium expressit, ut debita observantia et reverentia erga cultum divinum denuo instauraretur ac necessitatibus nostrae aetatis aptaretur. Quo desiderio motus, Decessor noster Summus Pontifex Paulus VI libros liturgicos instauratos et partim innovatos anno 1970 Ecclesiae latinae approbavit; qui ubique terrarum permultas in linguas vulgares conversi, ab Episcopis atque a sacerdotibus et fidelibus libenter recepti sunt. Ioannes Paulus II, tertiam editionem typicam Missalis Romani recognovit. Sic Romani Pontifices operati sunt ut «hoc quasi aedificium liturgicum [...] rursus, dignitate splendidum et concinnitate» appareret[4].

Aliquibus autem in regionibus haud pauci fideles antecedentibus formis liturgicis, quae eorum culturam et spiritum tam profunde imbuerant, tanto amore et affectu adhaeserunt et adhaerere pergunt, ut Summus Pontifex Ioannes Paulus II, horum fidelium pastorali cura motus, anno 1984 speciali Indulto “Quattuor abhinc annos”, a Congregatione pro Cultu Divino exarato, facultatem concessit utendi Missali Romano a Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 edito; anno autem 1988 Ioannes Paulus II iterum, litteris Apostolicis “Ecclesia Dei” Motu proprio datis, Episcopos exhortatus est ut talem facultatem late et generose in favorem omnium fidelium id petentium adhiberent.

Instantibus precibus horum fidelium iam a Praedecessore Nostro Ioanne Paulo II diu perpensis, auditis etiam a Nobis Patribus Cardinalibus in Concistorio die XXIII mensis martii anni 2006 habito, omnibus mature perpensis, invocato Spiritu Sancto et Dei freti auxilio, praesentibus Litteris Apostolicis DECERNIMUS quae sequuntur:

Art. 1. Missale Romanum a Paulo VI promulgatum ordinaria expressio “Legis orandi” Ecclesiae catholicae ritus latini est. Missale autem Romanum a S. Pio V promulgatum et a B. Ioanne XXIII denuo editum habeatur uti extraordinaria expressio eiusdem “Legis orandi” Ecclesiae et ob venerabilem et antiquum eius usum debito gaudeat honore. Hae duae expressiones “legis orandi” Ecclesiae, minime vero inducent in divisionem “legis credendi” Ecclesiae; sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.

Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet. Conditiones vero a documentis antecedentibus “Quattuor abhinc annos” et “Ecclesia Dei” pro usu huius Missalis statutae, substituuntur ut sequitur:

Art. 2. In Missis sine populo celebratis, quilibet sacerdos catholicus ritus latini, sive saecularis sive religiosus, uti potest aut Missali Romano a beato Papa Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 edito, aut Missali Romano a Summo Pontifice Paulo VI anno 1970 promulgato, et quidem qualibet die, excepto Triduo Sacro. Ad talem celebrationem secundum unum alterumve Missale, sacerdos nulla eget licentia, nec Sedis Apostolicae nec Ordinarii sui.

Art. 3. Si communitates Institutorum vitae consecratae atque Societatum vitae apostolicae iuris sive pontificii sive dioecesani quae in celebratione conventuali seu “communitatis” in oratoriis propriis celebrationem sanctae Missae iuxta editionem Missalis Romani anno 1962 promulgatam habere cupiunt, id eis licet. Si singula communitas aut totum Institutum vel Societas tales celebrationes saepe vel plerumque vel permanenter perficere vult, res a Superioribus maioribus ad normam iuris et secundum leges et statuta particularia decernatur.

Art. 4. Ad celebrationes sanctae Missae de quibus supra in art. 2 admitti possunt, servatis de iure servandis, etiam christifideles qui sua sponte id petunt.

Art. 5, § 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit, parochus eorum petitiones ad celebrandam sanctam Missam iuxta ritum Missalis Romani anno 1962 editi, libenter suscipiat. Ipse videat ut harmonice concordetur bonum horum fidelium cum ordinaria paroeciae pastorali cura, sub Episcopi regimine ad normam canonis 392, discordiam vitando et totius Ecclesiae unitatem fovendo.

§ 2. Celebratio secundum Missale B. Ioannis XXIII locum habere potest diebus ferialibus; dominicis autem et festis una etiam celebratio huiusmodi fieri potest.

§ 3. Fidelibus seu sacerdotibus id petentibus, parochus celebrationes, hac in forma extraordinaria, permittat etiam in adiunctis peculiaribus, uti sunt matrimonia, exsequiae aut celebrationes occasionales, verbi gratia peregrinationes.

§ 4. Sacerdotes Missali B. Ioannis XXIII utentes, idonei esse debent ac iure non impediti.

§ 5. In ecclesiis, quae non sunt nec paroeciales nec conventuales, Rectoris ecclesiae est concedere licentiam de qua supra.

Art. 6. In Missis iuxta Missale B. Ioannis XXIII celebratis cum populo, Lectiones proclamari possunt etiam lingua vernacula, utendo editionibus ab Apostolica Sede recognitis.

Art. 7. Ubi aliquis coetus fidelium laicorum, de quo in art. 5 § 1 petita a parocho non obtinuerit, de re certiorem faciat Episcopum dioecesanum. Episcopus enixe rogatur ut eorum optatum exaudiat. Si ille ad huiusmodi celebrationem providere non potest res ad Pontificiam Commissionem “Ecclesia Dei” referatur.

Art. 8. Episcopus, qui vult providere huiusmodi petitionibus christifidelium laicorum, sed ob varias causas impeditur, rem Pontificiae Commissioni “Ecclesia Dei” committere potest, quae ei consilium et auxilium dabit.

Art. 9, § 1. Parochus item, omnibus bene perpensis, licentiam concedere potest utendi rituali antiquiore in administrandis sacramentis Baptismatis, Matrimonii, Poenitentiae et Unctionis Infirmorum, bono animarum id suadente.

§ 2. Ordinariis autem facultas conceditur celebrandi Confirmationis sacramentum utendo Pontificali Romano antiquo, bono animarum id suadente.

§ 3. Fas est clericis in sacris constitutis uti etiam Breviario Romano a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgato.

Art 10. Fas est Ordinario loci, si opportunum iudicaverit, paroeciam personalem ad normam canonis 518 pro celebrationibus iuxta formam antiquiorem ritus romani erigere aut rectorem vel cappellanum nominare, servatis de iure servandis.

Art. 11. Pontificia Commissio “Ecclesia Dei” a Ioanne Paulo II anno 1988 erecta[5], munus suum adimplere pergit.

Quae Commissio formam, officia et normas agendi habeat, quae Romanus Pontifex ipsi attribuere voluerit.

Art. 12. Eadem Commissio, ultra facultates quibus iam gaudet, auctoritatem Sanctae Sedis exercebit, vigilando de observantia et applicatione harum dispositionum.

Quaecumque vero a Nobis hisce Litteris Apostolicis Motu proprio datis decreta sunt, ea omnia firma ac rata esse et a die decima quarta Septembris huius anni, in festo Exaltationis Sanctae Crucis, servari iubemus, contrariis quibuslibet rebus non obstantibus.

Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, die septima mensis Iulii, anno Domini MMVII, Pontificatus Nostri tertio.

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

A Small Matter about Bibles...

2007-07-07T17:06:00.000+08:00

The following is intended to expand upon the points about Bible Versions raised in the July 2007 Spotlight p 9 (the monthly internal publication of Blessed Sacrament Church, Singapore). This is also in commemoration of Bible Sunday, in this regional Bishop’s Conference. What follows all comes from my own personal experience.

First of all, the term Translation instead of Version is much more preferable especially since the various writers of Sacred Scripture did not write in English and in rendering it into English, one has to translate not create a new version. The duty of a translator is to render exactly what the author has written. By imposing ideas of what one thinks the author means, a mistranslation would result.

Contained with Sacred Scripture are 73 Books, and the exact list of these 73 Books dates back to at least AD 382 in the Synod of Rome under Pope Damasus I. This was very much during the time of the Early Christians. More than 1000 years later the Martin Luther would remove Books and verses from the Bible because they were not in conformity to the errors he was teaching. Luther also used the argument that the list of books from the Old Testament has to be based upon the list drawn up by the Council of Jamnia in AD 70. The problem with this argument is that by then the decrees of Jewish Rabbis no longer had any bearing on the Early Church.

Contrary also to Protestant thought is the fact that the Catholic Church did allow accurate translations of Sacred Scripture. Inaccurate translations on the other hand were severly suppressed. There is in existance, copies of translations into the language spoken in England during that time. As early as the 600s we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died whilst busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died, and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; as well as popular renderings of Holy Scripture like the Book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and others that have survived the wreck of ages. After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (About 1150) and the Salus Animae (1250), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). [Source: Where We Got the Bible, by Rt Rev Henry G. Graham]

Following the separation of the English Crown from the bosom of the Church, Catholics were heavily persecuted by the authorities. Many great monasteries were burnt and it was illegal to even attend Mass. Many great martyrs died for the faith during this period. Some English Catholic fled over the English Channel to France to seek refuge. Amongst these were the scholars who translated what is now known as the Douay Rheims Bible. The title page itself however reads "The Holy Bible, faithfully translated into English out of the authentic Latin. Diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greek and other Editions." As one can very clearly see, the concern of the translators was accuracy.

The translators published the New Testament in 1582 in the French town Douay. Although they completed the Old Testament soon after, due to a lack of funds the publication was delayed. It was eventually published in Rheims in two volumes in 1609 and 1610. Over the years of 1749 to 1752, the English Bishop Richard Challoner (who was an Anglican convert), made a thorough revision to the translation. For the next 200 years, every single English speaking Catholic would use this translation of the Bible. This translation is also still very much entrenched in English speaking Catholics. When one recites the Hail Mary, one is using the translation from the Douay Rheims Bible. To this day, it is still being published. Loreto Publications publishes a 1941 facsimile reprint of the Douay Rheims, while Baronius Press publishes a fresh digital typeset of the 1899 Douay Rheims.

The Douay-Rheims is called a literal translation. Yet it is not the only one of its kind.
Over the 1936 to 1950, an Monsignor Ronald Knox was authorised by the English Catholic Hierarchy to produce a fresh translation from the Latin Vulgate. This was known as the Knox Bible. Only the New Testament is still in print, and is published by Templegate Publishers. In the 1940s and 1950s a revision to the Douay Rheims was produced in the United States by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. This translation was called the Confraternity Bible. Sinag Tala prints both the New Testament and the full Bible.

In recent times, many other versions of the Bible in English have been produced. Two very significant problems plague them. The first is the claim to have translated from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and the second is the use of inclusive language. All modern versions of the Bible claim to reference and translate from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Not all however are plagued by inclusive language.

In 1957, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was completed by a Protestant organisation called the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Although a Catholic Edition was produced with Imprimatur in 1966, it still remains a Protestant translation, and is hampered by mistranslations. The RSV however is still considered to be a largely literal translation of the Bible. Even though a Second Catholic Edition was published in 2000, it is still plagued by the same mistranslations. Both Ignatius Press and Oxford Press print the Catholic Edition of the RSV. A 1971 edition of the RSV was used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but currently no publisher prints it. [Different from the New Revised Standard Version]

In 1961, the Dominicans published a Bible in French called the La Bible de Jerusalem. This was translated into English by a group of British Scholars and published in 1966 as the Jerusalem Bible (JB). Amongst the editors of the Bible was J.R.R. Tolkien and at times Tolkien fans refer to the JB as the Tolkienite Bible. The South East Asian region is very fortunate that the Philippine Bible Society still prints a facsimile copy. [Different from the New Jerusalem Bible]

Both of these Bibles do not contain any inclusive language, but claim to translate from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. As mentioned earlier, the duty of a translator is to translate what the author wrote, not what he thinks the author wrote. This however is not always the case.

In the RSV, John 3:16 reads “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” The Greek text however reads “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but should have eternal life.” Every single other Catholic Bible (aside from the Good News Bible) translates correctly to the latter. The former with a missing ‘should’ leaves open the way to Protestant conception of once saved always saved. Even the Catholic Edition contains this mistranslation.

In the JB, Luke 1:28 read “… Rejoice, so highly favoured! ...” Although ‘so highly favoured is a possible translation of the Greek ‘kecharitomene’, it more accurately translates to ‘most exalted one’. In terms of degree there is a huge gap in meaning in both terms. God through his Angel, Gabriel bestowed far more honour than just ‘high favour’. The use of ‘most exalted one’ would improve on ‘full of grace’ which is from the Latin gratia plena. Yet this was not done.

These are just two instances where even the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were not translated accurately into English.

Now I mentioned the term inclusive language, but I did not elaborate much about it. Inclusive language is also called gender neutral language. At its most basic level what inclusive language does to St Paul’s Epistles for example would be to change ‘my brothers’ to ‘my brothers and sister’. To a large extent there is no problem with this instance. Yet inclusive language is far more than just this. Taken to its fullest extent, inclusive language removes the masculine references of the Bible. For example both Psalm 1 and Psalm 111 start of with the line “Blessed is the man.” Using the gender neutral, the verse would read, “Blessed is the one” or “Blessed are those”. On the surface level it does not look like there is much of a difference since what follows after does apply to both genders. These two Psalms however are also prophecies about Christ, and that he is male is non-negotiable. Feminists have argued that Christ is both genders and some even claim that God is female.

So although the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) does in some instance improve on the JB, the use of inclusive language basically ruined the entire project. The same goes for the New Revised Standard Version (1991), which also did improve on the RSV and corrected the translation error of John 3:16. The New American Bible is also plagued by this problem. Another problem with the New American Bible is that anti-Catholic commentary is included in the Bible.

In 1979 the Good New Bible was produced by a Protestant organisation called the American Bible Society. The Good News Bible is also known as Today’s English Version. It should be noted that the chief editor, Robert Bratcher has no intention at all translating what was actually written by the writers of Sacred Scripture. The outcome was a very poorly produced version that even the Protestant Churches rejected. The beauty contained within Sacred Scripture has been significantly stripped away, and glaring inaccuracies and omissions are committed. A second edition was published in 1992, and the same problems remain. Inclusive language is also used, but the biggest problem is the glaring errors and omissions.

For example, reference to the cutting of the foreskin is circumcision in Genesis 17:11 is arbitrarily removed from the Good News Bible. Furthermore in Luke 2:21 where Jesus is circumcised the Good News Bible wrongly states that a baby is circumcised 1 week after birth. It should be 8 days after birth. Luke 2:21 links back to Genesis 17:12, and in Genesis 17:12 the Good News Bible states clearly 8 days.

The Good News Bible is said to be for those who do not have a good command of the English language. Given the problems however, it is more of a mistranslation. In terms of easy to read English, there is another far better alternative called the Christian Community Bible.

In 1994, the Claretians Fathers published the Christian Community Bible. A very significant amount of commentary is included and various significant verses retain the use of more traditional wording. An excellent feature that is included is a table with every single reading of the Mass used throughout the year. In 2004 however, inclusive language added. All fresh prints of the Christian Community Bible are plagued by it. Claretian Publications and the Daughters of St Paul publish the 2004 edition. It is also freely available online.

There are huge problems with modern day translations into English. This has to do with the translators reading the original languages, deciding what they think it means, and then translating their interpretation into English; all without regard for what is actually written. Even for private reading the translation should be proper. Having a simplified version, more often than not indicates that some of the original meaning is lost. Take for instance ‘chalice of salvation’ and ‘cup of salvation’. The use of ‘cup’ is a simplification, and yes, ‘chalice’ means cup. Yet chalice also has another meaning that is lost in the use of the word ‘cup’, chalice also means severe trial.

As a young person, I read the Douay Rheims. Especially when certain verses seem so difficult to understand in modern translations, the Douay Rheims is so much simpler. Compare Genesis 3:15 from the Douay Rheims, with the version you own. “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” In terms of a serious study of the Sacred Scripture, the Douay Rheims is excellent. In fact the Douay Rheims is much closer to the Hebrew and Greek than any modern translation. Personally, I also find the Christian Community Bible to also be good for one looking for an easy to read Bible with commentary at a reasonable price.

How did I come to know I this? I opened up the Bible and started reading. But before reading, one should begin with a prayer. You may use the following:

O King of Glory, Lord of Hosts, leave us not as orphans, but send us the Promised of the Father, the Spirit of Truth.
We implore you, O Lord, that the Consoler, will enlighten our souls and infuse into them all truth, as Your Son has promised. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

And after you finish...

Let me not, O Lord, be puffed up with worldly wisdom, which passes away, but grant me that love which never abates, that I may not choose to know anything among men, but Jesus, and Him crucified. Amen.

Another Breaking News!

2007-07-07T14:20:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Rorate Caeli]
Andrea Tornielli reports today in Il Giornale that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is about to release a Doctrinal Document stating in definitive and clear terms the interpretation of the Lumen Gentium passage according to which, "Haec ...unica Christi Ecclesia ... in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica" ("this ...one Church of Christ ... constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church")

"The Church of Christ is the Catholic one"

from Rome

The Church of Christ is not distinct or distinguishable from the Catholic Church, which is the only one to possess "all elements of the Church instituted by Jesus". The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will confirm it next week, responding to "doubts" [dubia] raised in the past few years. The doctrinal stand of the former Holy Office ... should be accompanied by an authoritative theological comment on the pages of L'Osservatore Romano.

At the center of the debate is once again the meaning of the verb "subsists", used by the Council in the Constitution Lumen Gentium, where it is said that the only Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church" (in Latin, "subsistit in"). Words which, in the course of the years, have suffered several interpretations, including the one according to which Jesus in reality had not thought of founding a Church and, in case he had, it would have afterwards divided itself in various Churches and ecclesial communities. Therefore ... , there would not be the true Church of Christ anymore, but only several expressions of it.

This recurrent thesis has already been repeatedly denied by the Popes. In 1973, with the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, of Paul VI; in 1985, with the notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on a book of liberation theologian Leonardo Boff; in 1992, with the Letter to the Bishops Communionis Notio, and, finally, in 2000 ... , with the declaration Dominus Iesus, approved by John Paul II.

Nonetheless, the doubts return cyclically ... .

I.Media informs that it will be released on Tuesday, July 10 (France-Presse dispatch/La Croix).

Baseless Anti-Semitic Fears of Motu Proprio

2007-07-07T11:27:00.000+08:00

VATICAN CITY, JULY 6, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI's apostolic letter concerning the Roman Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962, will not reinstate a prayer for the conversion of "perfidious Jews."

The Vatican press office announced today the Pope's letter issued "motu proprio," on his own initiative, is titled "Summorum Pontificum," and will be released Saturday at noon, accompanied by an explanatory letter.

Several media reports erroneously contend that the letter could in effect reinstate a prayer offensive to Jews from the Good Friday liturgy of the Tridentine Mass, which dates back to 1570. The prayer stated: "Oremus et pro perfidies Judaeis" (Let us pray for the perfidious Jews).

On the first Good Friday after his election to the papacy in 1959, Pope John XXIII eliminated the adjective "perfidious" from the prayer. Since then the expression "Let us pray for the Jews" has been used.

That same year, he also eliminated from the rite of baptism the phrase used for Jewish catechumens: "Horresce Jusaicam perfidiam, respue Hebraicam superstitionem" (Disavow Jewish unbelieving, deny Hebrew superstition).

Also eliminated were similar formulas for those converting from idolatry, Islam or a heretical sect.

The 1962 missal was promulgated with an apostolic letter issued "motu proprio" by John XXIII "Rubricarum Instructum." The missal does not make reference to "perfidious Jews."

On Good Friday in 1963, John XXIII underlined the importance of this decision when the old formulation of the prayer for the Jews was read. The Pope interrupted the liturgy and asked that that the liturgical invocations begin again from the beginning, following the new text.

The Roman Missal adopted by Pope Paul VI in 1969, and put into effect in 1970, reformulated the prayer. It reads: "Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.

"Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption."

Motu Propio: 7 July 2007!

2007-07-06T20:50:00.000+08:00

Its official! Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio relaxing the use of the 1962 Missal will be released on 7.7.07!

VATICAN CITY, JUL 6, 2007 (VIS) - Tomorrow, Saturday July 7, the Vatican Information service will transmit a special service for the publication of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" of His Holiness Benedict XVI, "Summorum Pontificum," concerning the use of the pre-1970 Roman liturgy. The document will be accompanied by an explanatory Letter from the Holy Father.

Motu Proprio Text?

2007-07-06T12:28:00.000+08:00

[Taken from Whispers from the Logia]

LITTERAE APOSTOLICAE
MOTU PROPRIO DATAE

BENEDICTUS XVI

Summorum Pontificum cura ad hoc tempus usque semper fuit, ut Christi Ecclesia Divinae Maiestati cultum dignum offerret, «ad laudem et gloriam nominis Sui» et «ad utilitatem totius Ecclesiae Suae sanctae».
Ab immemorabili tempore sicut etiam in futurum, principium servandum est «iuxta quod unaquaeque Ecclesia particularis concordare debet cum universali Ecclesia non solum quoad fidei doctrinam et signa sacramentalia, sed etiam quoad usus universaliter acceptos ab apostolica et continua traditione, qui servandi sunt non solum ut errores vitentur, verum etiam ad fidei integritatem tradendam, quia Ecclesiae lex orandi eius legi credendi respondet»....

* * *

[Some details?]
1. Implementation has been fixed for 14 September -- the feast of the Triumph of the Cross.

2. As for the review period, the Pope says to the bishops: "I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought."

3. Also “lawful,” according to the normative text – which, like its cover letter, comes in at four pages – are the erection of “personal parishes” for the celebration of the 1962 rites or the appointment of a “rector or chaplain” designated for the task, and the unimpeded use by clerics of the Roman Breviary as likewise promulgated by Bl. John XXIII.

4. According to the text, only the diocesan bishop is granted the faculty to administer Confirmation according to the pre-Conciliar Roman Pontifical.

5. “The Latin Liturgy in its various forms has stimulated in the spiritual life very many Saints in every century of the Christian age and strengthened in the virtue of religion so many peoples and made fertile their piety,” Pope Benedict reiterates in the motu proprio itself that while the Second Vatican Council “expressed the desire that with due respect and reverence for divine worship it be restored and adapted to the needs of our age,” the ensuing years have yielded “not a small number of the faithful [who] have been and remain attached with such great love and affection to the previous liturgical forms.”

6. “[A]s a matter of principle,” Pope Benedict tells the bishops, even those priests ordained for 1962-exclusive communities “cannot… exclude celebrating according to the new books.” Said “exclusion of the new rite,” he says, “would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

7. At the same time, the Pope says he finds it “true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition.” However, even in this the onus is placed on the prelates, whose “charity and pastoral prudence will,” he expects, “be an incentive and guide for improving these.”

Fr John Fessio Comments on the Motu Proprio

2007-07-05T14:52:00.000+08:00

[Taken from NLM]
Over at Ignatius Press' Spirit of the Liturgy page, there is a video by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. where he lays out his thoughts on the Motu Proprio: Pope Benedict and the Old Mass (recorded on June 29th, 2007).
I believe that this is going to be a major step toward the genuine renewal of the Mass, and therefore the genuine renewal of the Church, which the Council so ardently desired, and I think we are going to owe a great debt to Pope Benedict for doing this."

Motu Proprio: Summorum Pontificum

2007-07-04T23:10:00.000+08:00

Vatican, Jul. 4, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A papal document widening use of the 1962 Roman Missal will be released on July 7, the Roman news agency I Media says, confirming reports that circulated late in June.

The motu proprio will be entitled Summorum Pontificum, I Media adds. The title of the Pope's document had not previously been mentioned in the media, despite numerous reports of its existence and intense speculation over its contents.

The German-language agency Kath.net reported on June 27 that the document by Pope Benedict XVI will be released on Saturday, July 7. The Kath.net story appeared after a special Vatican meeting in which a small group of prelates were briefed about the contents of the motu proprio. The Vatican press office later confirmed that the meeting had taken place, but did not confirm the publication date for the document.

The motu proprio is reportedly a 3-page document. It will be released in conjunction with a 4-page explanatory letter in which the Pope sets out his reason for encouraging the use of the pre-conciliar liturgy as an "extraordinary" form of the Latin rite.

[Taken from Rorate Caeli]
UPDATE (1600 GMT): M. Antoine-Marie Izoard, director of I.MEDIA, has courteously granted us the possibility to make public the following excerpts of this morning's exclusive dispatch (Copyright I.MEDIA):

Vatican - Agency I.MEDIA - July 4 2007

The Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum" for the liberalization of the Mass according to the Missal of 1962 will be published on July 7

The Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio which Benedict readies to publish in order to liberalize the use of the Mass and liturgical books according to the pre-Conciliar rite of 1962 will receive the name of "Summorum Pontificum", I.MEDIA has learned from Vatican sources. This document, greatly expected by the Traditionalist faithful and feared by a certain number of Bishops, will be published on July 7.

Summorum Pontificum (in [English], "...of the Supreme Pontiffs") is the incipit (beginning of the text) of the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI liberalizing the use of the Mass said of "Saint Pius V", I.MEDIA has learned from Vatican sources. This Apostolic Letter which will be made public next July 7. The document will be accompanied by a long letter by the Pope explaining his motivations for this publication of which certain Bishops, particularly in France, disapprove [lit. "take a dim view"].

A World View :)

2007-07-03T20:33:00.000+08:00

You scored as Roman Catholic, You are Roman Catholic. Church tradition and ecclesial authority are hugely important, and the most important part of worship for you is mass. As the Mother of God, Mary is important in your theology, and as the communion of saints includes the living and the dead, you can also ask the saints to intercede for you.

Roman Catholic

100%

Neo orthodox

86%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

79%

Classical Liberal

61%

Fundamentalist

43%

Modern Liberal

36%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

36%

Reformed Evangelical

29%

Emergent/Postmodern

21%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Dishonest Motu Proprio Report

2007-07-03T13:23:00.000+08:00

[Taken from WDTPRS]

With a biretta tip to Fr. Blake, o{]:¬) I offer for your consideration a piece in the Jerusalem Post. This fits the famous "Tridentine template" which includes the obligatory elements of any ignorant article about the Motu Proprio.

But this piece, below, is something else entirely. It includes a couple very interesting images, juxtaposed. As yourself why, after reading this (My emphases and comments)

The Vatican is expected to publish this week a document authorizing the use of a controversial Latin Mass, parts of which are deemed anti-Semitic, [By whom? And, is this claim actually true?] the Holy See announced Thursday.
According to a report in Britain’s Independent newspaper, some clergy fear that if the Latin Mass [Ooopppsss] were brought back into common use, it would limit the Church’s dialogue with Jews and Muslims, as well as create a schism among Catholics worldwide. [Again and again, the issue of ecumenism pops up. However, what non-Catholic critics really want is that Catholics not actually be Catholic, that they sacrifice their identity for the sake of dialogue. However, as I have written many times elsewhere, Pope Benedict believes the Church has a right to her own language, symbols, forms of prayer and identity. She has a right to a voice in the public square, using her own language and symbols, expressing her own identity. This is one of the deeper purposes of the MP. This is what smarter critics of the Church and MP are really afraid of.]
The 16th-century Tridentine Mass – recited every Good Friday – refers to Jews as "perfidious," and claims they live in "blindness" and "darkness." The Mass prays that God might "take the veil from their hearts" so that Jews can come to acknowledge Jesus Christ.
Rev. Keith Pecklers, an expert on Jesuit liturgy, [Which is really a good way of saying it, though it sounds like a contradiction of terms.] told the Independent that elements [Note well the ideologically charged label "element"] in the Church who embraced the old Mass tended to oppose "collaboration with other Christians and [the Church’s] dialogue with Jews and Muslims." [Again, its all about dialogue with non-Catholics.]
Currently, priests who wish to recite the Latin Mass, which was replaced in 1969 with liturgy in the vernacular, must receive permission from their bishops.
Pope Benedict’s decision, some believe, is an attempt to bring the ultra-traditionalist Society of St. Pius X group back under the auspices of the Vatican. The move has been opposed by many senior representatives of the Catholic Church in Britain, including Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, as well as Jewish leaders. [AND??? SO???? We are really supposed to make decisions about what we believe or how we pray on the basis of objections of non-Catholics? Apparently.]

[Psalmus 42 Comment: And each publication is supposed to have its own fact checkers. Right?]