Summorum Pontificum in danger?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Rorate Caeli intimates that this landmark document might be under threat. I can't believe nine years have passed since its publication.

    It is mysterious how the phenomenal document, Universae Ecclesiae, the companion document of SP, the instruction on its application, was, in my opinion, almost completely ignored by the powers that be. It's astounding how so few priests and lay people realize how simple and easy that document made it to obtain a parish Latin Mass.

    For instance, this section in UE explains how any group of the faithful must be given everything necessary for a celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the EF:

    33. If there is a qualified priest, a coetus fidelium (“group of faithful”), which follows the older liturgical tradition, can also celebrate the Sacred Triduum in the forma extraordinaria. When there is no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations, the parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest, should find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, not excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.

    I remember at the time reading this and marveling, "Wow! This is just too good to be true. Does it really mean that all I have to do is gather a few friends and ask my parish priest, and we can actually have the Sacred Triduum in the EF? This can't be true!! I can't believe that's all we have to do to have a traditional celebration of Holy Week in my own local parish, the first in our diocese in over 50 years!!"

    Alas, it was indeed too good to be true.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    One more thing: I was just re-reading Universae Ecclesiae, and the thought occurred that it's fair to say that this document empowers the people, the Christifideles laici, more than any other document in the history of the Church.

    No wonder they shut it down. : )
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Until there is a mandate from Rome that makes the traditional Mass a requirement, there will be priests who ignore any "suggestions" no matter how strong. As Fr Vogel coined the phrase "Legalistic Liturgical Minimalism."
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • I'm missing the title's connection to the content thus far: how is Summorum Pontificum at risk, except from an airline press conference?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    JulieColl, Summorum Pontificum shifted the decision-making authority about EF Masses from bishops down to the pastors of parishes, who now are free to authorize such Masses in their churches, if a qualified priest wishes to celebrate them. That was an enormous change.

    Now, if I understand you right, it seems that you were led to believe that the decision-making authority about Triduum services was taken away from parish pastors; that they would be required to fulfill a request from the lay people who asked for an EF Triduum and the "qualified priest" who offered to celebrate it. Pope Benedict XVI made a bold change by issuing SP, but he didn't go that far.

    Where could such a misleading interpretation come from? We have enough sufferings among the faithful about liturgical issues without having someone increase them by spreading false expectations.

    It is unrealistic for anyone to read

    the parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest, should find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, not excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.


    and take it to mean:

    the parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest, shall find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, and shall arrange a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.


    "Should" is not "shall". It's a recommendation, not a strict requirement.

    And "not excluding the possibility" merely permits the celebration of a second Triduum service (allowing an exception to the general rule of only one such celebration). It doesn't declare it to be required.

  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    Correct.

    And, even though the issue was raised before the issuance of SP, the limitations on bination/trination was never addressed in it or UE. The effect of this is that most pastors will no cause to displace an OF Mass on the standing schedule with an EF Mass unless a majority of the regular attendees at that Mass request such a change.

    This is an issue on Sundays for parishes with only one priest or in clusters where priests are already maxed out, as it were (which is an increasing number of parishes in the USA).

    Had the legislator really wanted to enable more in this regard, the issue could have been addressed expressly and simply. But it wasn't done.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Liam, I don't see anywhere in Universae Ecclesiae where it is required that a "majority of regular attendees request a change." Instead, the document defines the coetus fidelium simply as a “group of the faithful” [which] can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”). There is no number or percentage attached to this definition, and the members of the group do not have to be members of the same parish or diocese.

    Regarding the proper interpretation of Universae Ecclesiae, I realize its greatest flaw is that there are no sanctions provided. So it really depends on the authority whether implementation of this law would be enforced. It is also dependent upon what appears to be an expanded power of the PCED to monitor and observe the application of SP, and which appears to give the PCED power to supercede the decisions of local bishops. Bishops are given power to monitor liturgical matters, but, as the document states, "in cases of controversy or well-founded doubt about the celebration in the forma extraordinaria, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will adjudicate."

    However, I still maintain that this extraordinary document grants an enhanced status to the laity, whom Pope Benedict called "the principal addressees" of the 1962 Roman Liturgy; the purpose and intent of Pope Benedict are these, as it states in UE (Section 8):

    "a. offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved;

    b. effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees."

    So here's a question: Has this document, and the spirit behind it, been effectively implemented, according to the mens of Pope Benedict XVI, and if not, why not?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    P.S. I just discovered this fascinating footnote in UE which pertains to the number of the coetus fidelium:

    *When the Latin text was first released, there followed another sentence: ‘Ad numerum fidelium huius coetus designandum, pastoralis succurrit ratio, cautis tamen circumstantiis aequa lance ponderandis’ (‘Pastoral logic comes into play for deciding on the number of faithful in this group, yet bearing in mind that the circumstances are to be considered impartially.’) The sentence was omitted from subsequent versions released by the Holy See, including the official text published in the Acta Apostolis Sedis (AAS Vol CIII N. 6, p416).
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    Julie

    I didn't say it's in the legislation. Rather, it's an effect that naturally flows from the failure to address limits on bination/trination.

    A coetus fidelium has no rights to force a pastor to commandeer a time slot for the EF on the standing schedule of Masses. If that's how you read SP/UE, it's not in there, not even in that footnote. When thinking like a Roman, what is not said is as important as what is said, and SP/UE are not as silver bullet for that.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Liam, I'm afraid you're reading into my words every bit as much or more than you think I'm reading into UE. Let me be clear in what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Holy Father said that if a group of people ask the pastor for the EF Mass and for the traditional Holy Week liturgy, the Holy Father said that the priest ought to accommodate their request.

    That's all I'm saying, and that's all the document says. It says if the pastor cannot accommodate them, then the bishop should accommodate them. If the bishop cannot accommodate them, they should appeal to the PCED, and they will work things out for them. Nowhere did I say that pastors should be forced to change their Mass schedules, etc. All I said is that the document is very clear that the people have a right to request the Latin Mass and the traditional Holy Week liturgy.

    Let's also be clear that the document does not say what you are suggesting. The document does not say that Mass schedules cannot be changed unless a majority of attendees request such a change.

    The spirit of the document is clear that it is up to the pastor to harmonize the request for the traditional liturgy into the life of the parish and be as generous as possible to everyone, and that the bishop must allow the traditional liturgy to be preserved and flourish.

    Let's also be clear that nowhere in the document does it say the Usus Antiquior is to be given last place on the schedule as if, because there is an existing Mass schedule, it is a commandment written in stone that the EF people will never have a conveniently scheduled Sunday morning parish EF High Mass as long as they live.

    The document gives the EF neither first nor last place on the schedule, but merely makes it quite clear that the pastor, if he receives a request, should do his best to integrate this into the life of the parish in the normal way with all the usual considerations that means.

    We all know that that both pastor and faithful need to work together in a spirit of generosity, flexibility, patience and kindness to bring about a situation where everyone's liturgical needs are met in the parish and where noone is made to feel like a second class citizen just because their liturgical document was issued later than their neighbors'.

    (. . . parochus aut rector, aut sacerdos qui ecclesiae curam habet, prudenti mente agat, pastorali zelo, caritate et urbanitate suffultus.)

    So here's a question, Liam: do you believe it is in keeping with UE that in my diocese of over 1 million Catholics there is no place where one can go to attend and participate in the traditional EF Holy Week rites?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    No, but a pastor whose clerical forces are at their bination/trination limits is, practically, not going to displace an existing OF Sunday mass unless the coetus is the center of gravity among the regulars at that Mass, because he will likely fear losing the $$ of the regulars who if they are able are likely to go elsewhere at a similar hour. It's a practical reality, not a "rule". The practical reality of parish life is that, while there are parishioners who toggle over the weekend Mass schedules regularly, most people (except for a periodic logistical shift) tend to stick to the same Mass, so what we really have is co-existing sub-parishes, rather than one parish.

    As for Mansion Murphy: let's just say few tears were shed here in Boston when he was promoted.

    Before SP was promulgated, as I've noted since then periodically here, if the legislator had asked ME, I would have recommended: (1) clearly eliminating limitations on bination/trination as a potential obstacle to adding Masses to the schedule, and (2) using deaneries/vicariates forane as a presumptive (but not conclusive) default/baseline for supplying in response to demand - that is, require them to be available at least in each one by a certain date, and then review the need 3 years out, et cet.

    This was all quite foreseeable, and foreseen. Rome decided not to address the issues in a meaningful way.


    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • francis
    Posts: 10,709
    SP... way too little way too late. The effort was like running to a house that had burned to the ground yesterday with a cup of water in hand hoping to change the circumstances. Go to the FSSP or the SSPX while they still havent compromised the liturgy, cause they might catch fire too soon the way things are going.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Thanks for the excellent answer, Liam. I realized long ago that UE was not going to work, and I would never approach my pastor or any good conservative priest I know with that request since I know it would cause them great difficulties and might even put their professional lives at risk.

    The thought occurs that it is highly ironic that most pastor cannot, realistically speaking, interject a Latin Mass on the Sunday Mass schedule, but they can, as Pope's recommended interpreter, Cardinal Schonborn, has stated, now decide whether the divorced and remarried can receive Communion.

    So, have we reached a point where the parish priest has the *authority* to allow his congregation to allow multiple couples in irregular situations to receive Communion, while he doesn't have the power to put a Latin Mass on the Sunday schedule?

    If so, we're in quite a pickle. It doesn't sound like the hermeneutic of continuity to me.

    If I go to my pastor and ask him for a Latin Mass on the Sunday schedule, will he tell me, "I'm sorry, I can't do that, but may I interest you in a fast, cheap annulment, or divorce and remarriage while you remain a *faithful* Catholic? You see, according to Pope Francis' authorized interpreter, I now have that power."

    If I object, will he chase me out of the rectory, calling me a neo-Pelagian doctor of the law? (Actually, my pastor is a wonderful, kind man who would never do any of the above.)

    P.S. If such a scenario did occur, however, could I turn around and tell my pastor that I'm going to a SSPX chapel for the remainder of the Year of Mercy, because Pope Francis said it's okay?

    Please don't mind me, I'm just trying to figure out all the implications of recent events.
    Thanked by 1mmeladirectress
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,078
    As much as I would approve in practical terms, limits on bination/trination are too generous as it is.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    I'm not even sure that pastors can change a scheduled parish Mass to EF (on a regular basis) without the bishop's OK.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    Chonak. you are correct. That's minutiae that even fewer people know.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,732
    A parish priest in my diocese in two separate parishes changed one of the Sunday morning Masses from OF to EF, he did not need permission. In the first he gradually introduced the change to EF via OF Latin, in his present parish it was within the month. In both parishes he upset a small group of very vocal modernists. The vast majority of each parish did not mind what Mass was being said, and a reasonable number thought the change for the better.

    Of course some bishops would be very upset if a change like this took place.

    I do note that we can have Masses (In England) said in Spanish, Polish,.. Klingon etc. but if it is in Latin it can be a problem. My advice is that if your stable group cannot be given a Mass slot at a reasonable time, while other groups can, Don't give them the money!

    I see no problem sending my tithe to the FSSP seminarian fund, the Transalpine Redemptorists, etc... rather than my diocese. Oh and do write to the bishop when you do this and explain why.

    Although I must say that here in London we have plenty of EF Masses... our extended choir is now involved with 2 Sunday Sung Masses and 2 regular evening Masses on Monday and Wednesday, if we add feast days (1st Class / double of Second Class) and monthly Friday Masses we have on average 3 Sung weekday evening Masses in central London.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    .
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,955

    I'll be vilified for this, but I have a philosophy that many Protestant converts never really give up all of their Protestant sentiments, such as the notion of sola scriptura. I wonder how many of these "very vocal modernists" are Protestant converts who like things they way they are because they remind them of their former, Protestant churches.


    I have said the same. Many of those Protestants come through RCIA fully Catholic in appearance, but Protestant in belief and practice. And, of course, they want to sing their old Protestant songs. I have also said that many of the Spanish Catholics I have dealt with are as much pagan as they are Catholic.


    This may actually turn some heads.


    Have we offended everyone equally, ClergetKubisz? I wouldn't want to leave anyone out - not inclusive, you know.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    I'm very glad to hear how the EF is allowed to flourish in London, tomjaw. It is to be hoped that such a generous atmsophere will be replicated in the northeast of the U.S. someday.

    Regarding the notion that a pastor must ask permission of his ordinary in order to place an EF Mass on the regular parish schedule, I don't see where this is mentioned in SP or in UE.

    What I do see in SP is this statement:

    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.


    This characterization of the local ordinary's role is re-emphasized in UE:

    13. Diocesan Bishops, according to Canon Law, are to monitor liturgical matters in order to guaran- tee the common good and to ensure that every- thing is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses[5], always in agreement with the mens of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.[6] In cases of con- troversy or well-founded doubt about the celebration in the forma extraordinaria, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will adjudicate.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    Julie.

    I am traveling and without laptop but it's not specific to SP or UE. It's in more general legislation pre dating them. It's about a parishes fixed Mass schedule.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Thanks, Liam. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on these things and have no way of knowing what regulations pastors are subject to by their bishop, but what I don't understand is, if you're saying that the bishop is still the one to decide when a Latin Mass can be put on the regular parish schedule, then what is the point of SP and UE if the priest still doesn't have the right to put a Latin Mass on the schedule even though the Pope has recognized that right in those two documents?

    I just don't get it. If the bishop is indeed the ultimate arbiter of what goes on the regular Mass schedule of every parish in his diocese, why isn't that fact mentioned in those two documents?

    The second point I don't understand is that the Pope said in SP that the 1962 Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted, so given this foundation from which the Pope appears to be drawing his norms, how can the priest ever be restricted from saying either form of the Roman rite?

    It seems like you are operating by the norms in the 1984 indult and acting as though SP and UE had never appeared at all. At least that's what it looks like to me.

    Thanked by 1Liam
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    P.S. In Universae Ecclesiae, no. 17 states:

    17. § 1. In deciding individual cases, the pastor or the rector, or the priest responsible for a church, is to be guided by his own prudence, motivated by pastoral zeal and a spirit of generous welcome.

    It doesn't mention the bishop at all. Funny thing, that.
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,473
    Two things are always striking about the western Roman church: 1.The propensity for making " documents", a seemingly endless production. 2.The limited effect that these documents have of local practice. Sometimes i think the Roman church believes that making a document about an issue will solve the problem and resolve the question. This thinking seems to be unique with Rome. After all, does anyone ever refer to "documents" in the Othodox churches or even our Lutheran or protestant brethren? The (perhaps sad) reality is that there are no teeth to these pronunciations, an most bishops and preists feel free to interpret them freely.The Moto of Benedict is a case in point. You would think that all bishops would be receptive and responsive to the desire of the faithful to establish a EF mass is a visible part of each diocese, but is that the case? It does seem to me that all these documents are ignored generally, except fot folks on this forum who refer to them as law.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    Julie. It's not about the TLM specifically. It's more general.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    ClergetKubisz wrote:
    I wonder how many of these "very vocal modernists" are Protestant converts who like things they way they are because they remind them of their former, Protestant churches.

    Since there are numerous converts from Protestantism on this forum, perhaps you could ask us what we think of this question.
    Thanked by 2Olivier MarkS
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    .
  • Clerget,

    Yes, many do retain attachments to their former way of life and credal system. On the other hand, there are some who retain knowledge of, but not attachment to, their former life. (Hence, you will see people such as Jackson Osborn claim that Beati Quorum Via, of Sir Charles Stanford, is Catholic.)

    Some of us found ourselves counted "traditional" Catholics because we wanted the whole thing -- some people call it "high octane Catholicism" -- not something which was Catholic but didn't seem much like it.

  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,078
    There is some truth, in my observations anyways…
  • mmeladirectress
    Posts: 1,080
    >> Do converts often retain some of their old Protestant ways?
    I don't know about often, but it does happen - take Scott Hahn for example. The Church doesn't really have a place for ... uh... lay preachers.

    however in my own experience the vast majority of converts are probably stronger, better Catholics than the average 'cradle' variety, and it makes sense. Fidelity to grace and all that.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    Clerget,

    What sort of scenario are you imagining? Are you under the impression that liturgical or doctrinal modernism makes the modern Roman Rite resemble a Baptist or Congregational or Presbyterian or Pentecostal Sunday service? Your theory may need some refinement.
    Thanked by 1MarkS
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    No, I'm not saying that modernism makes the Mass look like a Protestant service. I'm saying that the NO looks like a Protestant service because it was designed that way.

    I'm retracting my other statements because they are indefensible and have caused confusion.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    A broad statement like "the NO looks like a Protestant service" is indefensible too. After all, what kind of Protestant service? If you reflect on your experience attending a Baptist, Congregational, or Pentecostal service, you'll recall that those denominations' services generally are not services of Holy Communion. Hence the modern Roman rite will not resemble them very much. Or maybe I shouldn't presume that you have experience attending Sunday services of those denominations.

    It wouldn't make sense to claim that the "NO" looks like an Episcopalian service either. We adopted versus populum and standing for communion when they were still facing liturgical East and kneeling.

    I'm being insistent against your argument because I hate to see fellow Catholics under the widespread illusion that they can ascribe to Protestants the problematic aspects of the current rite of Mass, when all the decision-making at the Council and the bad implementation of the Council's directives were done by authorities of the Catholic Church. There's a mythology here: that if something seemed foreign, it had to have come from Protestants.

    The influences coming from Protestantism were not so much obvious changes to the "look" of the Mass, but more likely subtle changes, such as omissions in its language, with a tendency to reduce the prominence of doctrinal points considered stumbling blocks.

    Of the visible innovations to the Roman rite, more were probably done in imitation of Byzantine-rite liturgical practice than Protestant practices. The free-standing altar, the addition of Eucharistic Prayers containing an epiclesis, the Memorial Acclamation, the extension of the Lord's Prayer, standing for Holy Communion: those are all Byzantinisms (correction: the Memorial Acclamation is from another Eastern liturgical family). The introduction of the vernacular and the addition of the Universal Prayer could probably be counted as two more.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,955
    those are all Byzantinisms.


    Yes, they are from the east and as I understand, also from the western empire days of the Latin Rite liturgy. However, that doesn't mean they are always or even usually done well.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Sometimes i think the Roman church believes that making a document about an issue will solve the problem and resolve the question. This thinking seems to be unique with Rome. After all, does anyone ever refer to "documents" in the Othodox churches or even our Lutheran or protestant brethren?


    The legalistic mindset of the Catholic Church can be traced back to Roman times, and I for one value the fact that the Church's teaching has been carefully codified and preserved in documents over the centuries. That aspect of Romanitas has always been a source of comfort to me---knowing that the magisterium is linear, precise and has strict boundaries and isn't just a random collection of thoughts.

    That's why I find Cardinal Schonborn's recent remarks about Amoris Laetitia very curious:

    "As we read the Council of Nicaea in the light of the Council of Constantinople, and Vatican I, in the light of Vatican II, so now we have to read the previous interventions of the Magisterium on the family in the light of its contribution."

    Isn't this the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture, as Pope Benedict once defined it?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    Romanitas may be many things but linear is not one of them. Linearity is an American value but not really a Roman one.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW JL CHGiffen
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Or maybe I shouldn't presume that you have experience attending Sunday services of those denominations.


    You're correct, here. I don't have any experience attending Sunday services of the mainstream Protestant denominations. What Protestant experience I have is very little and it was at Evangelical Free and Methodist parishes. No, the NO doesn't look anything like what I saw there. Of the two, the NO had the most in common with the Methodist service I experienced: a Scripture reading followed by a sermon, with some hymns to begin and end the service. If I remember correctly, there was a hymn immediately following the sermon as well. I decided after being questioned on this that I lack the knowledge to be speaking about it in depth, so I rescinded my previous statements and closed my argument.

    What I'm still confused about, in general, is why there is all this push back against the TLM and its elements such as Gregorian chant, Latin, and ad orientem worship. It has been my experience that pastors won't even dare to include any of those three elements into the NO. The big question is: WHY NOT? It's also been my experience that when you ask that question, you can't get a straight answer.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Sorry if I didn't use exactly the right word. I just meant to say that the teaching of the Church has an easily traceable lineage.

    Let me approach it another way. Pope Benedict gave a talk in December, 2005, about what he called the hermeneutic of continuity. This talk was very significant because the Holy Father gave us an exacting standard with which to interpret the acts of the magisterium.

    As Cardinal Newman did in his masterful work, The Development of Christian Doctrine, the Holy Father strongly reiterated what the Church has always taught concerning the proper interpretation of the Church's doctrine, namely that any innovations must always be interpreted in the light of tradition, that is to say, in the light of the Church's constant and perennial magisterium.

    There is never, as the Holy Father has said, a Ground Zero in the magisterium which contradicts anything that came before, but rather, at times, there is instead an increase in understanding in what has always been there.

    So, the Holy Father used as his principal example the proper interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, which, he told us, must and can only be understood in the light of the Church's perennial magisterium being seen only in continuity with what went before.

    So what he was saying was that the only correct way to understand the Second Vatican Council is if it is interpreted in full continuity with the previous magisterium, and not, as some had suggested, in discontinuity, or rupture, whereby the previous magisterium would somehow be magically changed to be seen to conform to this new, mythical interpretation of the Second Vatican Council.

    The same struggle can be seen being played out last week where Arbp. Chaput, in full conformity with these principles laid out by P. Benedict XVI, told us that the only proper way of understanding AL is in the light of Familiaris Consortio and every other document that came before it, and, as such, there was absolutely no possibility of the divorced and remarried and any other Catholics in irregular situations to receive Communion, unless they observe the conditions laid out by St. John Paul II in FC, which were the reiteration of what the Church had always taught.

    It is no secret that the teaching of Arbp. Chaput was contradicted by Cardinal Schonborn, who laid out as the basis of his claim the exact opposite principle taught by P. Benedict XVI in his famous "Hermeneutic of Continuity" address. Instead of the Cardinal teaching as Pope Benedict XVI did, that every act of the magisterium must be interpreted in the light of tradition, His Eminence claims the exact opposite, namely, that tradition must be interpreted in the light of every new act of the magisterium, thus these two bishops are teaching two completely different things.
    Thanked by 1kenstb
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,955
    Such is the state of the Latin church. Too many documents, and too many talking heads. We need the emperor back to knock heads together as at Nicaea.
  • that tradition must be interpreted in the light of every new act of the magisterium


    Does the good Viennese Cardinal have Justice Kennedy's phone number on speed dial?
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Is really SP in danger? The Rorate article referred at the beginning of this thread is not specific. SP&UE indeed give many possibilities to a coetus fidelium, but does not specify if the pastor must provide an every Sunday Mass, or the Holy Week functions, or maybe just an odd weekday Mass. It is my impression that the problem is on the 'demand side'. The most places with many committed faithful have already gotten their traditional Masses under the indult or even before. The rest have caught up after 07/07/07. Today, the dioceses with no TLM are those were the willing faithful are too few and far between. What a pastor is supposed to do when five persons come to him and ask every Sunday Mass or the Triduum? The prime time in the parish schedule is taken by Novus ordo. Adding a Mass in an 'unfriendly' time will guarantee that those five petitioners remain five or even become, say, three. Converting a scheduled Mass to TLM may cause complaints that let the bishop to conclude that "peace and serenity" have been destroyed. Any solution?
    Thanked by 2JulieColl chonak
  • francis
    Posts: 10,709
    well, this is very heady, but puts the unchangeable magesterium in proper perspective, and pretty much says we don't view anything in light of VII but it is the other way around. VII is in a theological soup once the right questions are brought forward from the perspective of the unchanging magisterium. We just need people brave and smart enough to ask the right questions and then we need people smart and brave enough to answer the questions and not run away from the truth.

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/07/book-launch-in-london-20th-july-fr.html?m=1
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Thanks for the link, Francis. It's tough going, but I'm trying to get through it since it's germane to the current situation.

    Andris, great analysis of the TLM situation. I know it's a thorny problem for an OF pastor, but I wonder if efforts were made to present the Latin Mass in a way that demonstrates that, as Pope Benedict said, that "Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church" if that wouldn't help prevent complaints and criticisms of it?

    It seems to me that if the TLM is celebrated in a way that is so alien or abstruse that the average Catholic cannot make head or tails of it that makes it all the more difficult to reach a potential reconciliation between the OF and EF.

    In other words, introducing a silent Low Mass into the regular Sunday Mass schedule of a parish (as I have seen done in one parish) is probably the single best way to immunize the average OF Catholic against the Usus Antiquior.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,955
    Staffing is a big issue, as well. We have gone from a full-time and hard working associate, to a part-timer who teaches multiple classes every day. At some point, it may be necessary to reduce the number of Sunday masses, simply because the priests are not available. Generally, the mass affecting the fewest number of people is the one to be cut. Guess which one that usually is.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Charles,

    Pray for vocations.

    Cheers,

    me
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    We hear a lot of talk about how we can't really do anything significant to change things, because there's basically so few people interested in the old rite in our parishes that's it's just a lose-lose proposition to try to make the EF a part of our parish lives again.

    https://gloria.tv/video/K775UiyUyEh23PpoZfBRL2LSr

    If you look at this video of a Marian procession with our FSSPX friends at St. Mary's, Kansas, one has to wonder if they've maybe tapped into something that so many of the rest of us aren't able to right now. One has to ask why it is that they are able to attract so many people who are willing to sacrifice so much for a traditional expression of the Faith and why it is so rare to see such enthusiasm and devotion in other parishes.

    Is there something that they're doing that we could learn from?

    I think it's because they're giving people the whole package, an organic, systematic and comprehensive parish life that has meaning and purpose from beginning to end. From cradle to grave, these priests offer the people the entire package of EF Catholic life and not just one Mass a week inserted into an otherwise OF existence. This includes their parish life of catechesis, EF Missal, EF sacraments, EF Divine Office, and EF Rituale Romanum as well as a parish social life that is centered around the traditional liturgy.

    They seem to be doing quite well, and I'm happy for them, and they're showing the world that the Usus Antiquior can succeed when everything and everyone is on the same page to support this vision. Perhaps it is all or nothing. I don't know.
  • mmeladirectress
    Posts: 1,080
    the following was posted on this forum last November. I can't hang this on the Byzantines; many Protestant sects wouldn't countenance a lot of it.

    My wife is part of RCIA and is converting to Catholicism as of Easter. In the last of her things she had to do was go to the local Cathedral and be introduced to the Archbishop. This I was not looking forward, as I knew they had brought it into the looks of what supposedly was wanted in Vatican II. Entering the Cathedral, with the hanging toothpick Jesus crucifix right over the central alter first hit me hard... it made me sad. Next, how our seats (no pews, just chairs) were in the front where the high altar used to be. We were facing the back of the church. I saw the Tabernacle tucked away in a hallway to the right. No one bowed to it, or knelt to it. People treated it like an "art piece" at an art museum, much of how they made that Cathedral look... not like a house of god, but almost like a museum.

    The icing was the music played during this Rite of Election/Introduction to the Arch. I think they may have played one more traditional song out of the many picked. The psalm that was picked when my wife went up sounded like some sort of Bar Mitzvah song, with tambourines, maracas, bongo drums, and piano. It was so loud and disturbing, and they kept repeating it every 2-3 Churches that went up. The rest of the music picked all involved flute, piano, those bongos, and cello/violin. Occasionally mix in the organ. It was a mish-mash, with nothing that even remotely sounded beautiful. Not to mention, the choir/instrumentalists were all on show, in the area where the high altar used to be.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    why it is so rare to see such enthusiasm and devotion in other parishes.


    I think it may be because some people think that "enthusiasm and devotion" means blow-the-doors-off-the-church congregational singing and overwhelmingly loud congregational vocal responses during the liturgy: all external.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • francis
    Posts: 10,709
    I think it's because they're giving people the whole package, an organic, systematic and comprehensive parish life that has meaning and purpose from beginning to end. From cradle to grave, these priests offer the people the entire package of EF Catholic life and not just one Mass a week inserted into an otherwise OF existence. This includes their parish life of catechesis, EF Missal, EF sacraments, EF Divine Office, and EF Rituale Romanum as well as a parish social life that is centered around the traditional liturgy.


    bingo JulieColl

    authentic faith (unstaged)

    lived out simply on a daily basis

    how obvious is this!?

    when you don't spend all your energy trying to 'hold your position' (or constantly worrying if someone is going to rob you of it) you can focus on the very things that are your position, grow to love and practice them.

    the minute the NO is introduced into a parish situation, well, everything is then permanently unpredictable.

    for instance, let's say you own and run an Authentic Italian restaurant. About five generations go by and someone walks in and says "starting today, we will also make and sell Chinese food". Well, that is exactly the state of things in the Church. If I want Chinese food, I will go to a Chinese restaurant. Right?

    There is nothing bad about Chinese food... just keep it out of my Italian Cuisine! (double meaning on the Italian thing)

  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Another analogy: Transplanting a fully actualized EF Missa Cantata into the life of a typical OF parish with little attempt to integrate it and harmonize it with the OF is like bringing an evergreen tree into your home at Christmas. You carry in the beautiful, vigorous (sempervirens) tree, its full branches bursting with health and vitality, and its glorious pungent aroma filling your house, but despite your efforts to keep it watered with a preservative solution, it isn't long before it starts to fade and die.

    Unless you are prepared to go to substantial lengths to care for a live evergreen, the alien environment of your house is just not going to sustain it for long.

    So, you can't expect the EF to thrive and bloom in an environment where not much is invested in its care and sustenance (esp. when the official attitude is that "the extraordinary form must not take the place of the ordinary form".)
    Thanked by 3francis CHGiffen Jahaza
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    And that's what would happen were it to become the default.


    Thanked by 2JulieColl CHGiffen