The traditional rite in the diocese of Hamilton

Andrew_Malton

His Excellency the Bishop of Hamilton declares that the traditional Rite in the diocese must now be subject to certain rules, according to certain earlier statements by the CDW.

It is said that the reading of sacred scripture in Latin is forbidden.

It is said that the celebration of holy Baptism, of Penance, and of holy Unction, in the traditional Rite, are forbidden.

It is said that weekday Masses in the traditional Rite are forbidden; but as a concession, they may be said in Latin and facing East in the Novus Rite. But strictly only on those weekdays when it was previously said that the traditional Rite could be used. (Latin and facing East in the Novus rite were forbidden previously.)

It is said that no “community” may have more than one traditional Mass of a Sunday, nor that Masses in both rites may be said on the same Sunday.

The faithful dead are denied Requiems in the traditional Rite, unless (when living) they were consistent and regular in participation in the traditional celebrations.

The faithful living are forbidden to marry in the traditional Rite; but as a concession, there may be a traditional nuptial Mass after the wedding: but permission must be asked first.

StimsonInRehab

The French philosopher Julien Benda, without knowing it, wrote a book about gentlemen like the Bishop of Hamilton, or the Archbishop of Chicago, and their fellow partisans. He referred to them as clerks - I leave the particular adjective he used to you to look up.

[And for those who will complain that comments such as these contribute to the lamentable, increasing anti-intellectual situation on this forum - to the point where it becomes 'fly-over country' to those of finer minds:

"Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:—
We murder to dissect."
- William Wordsworth]

M. Jackson Osborn

Clerks (and Clark, (its bedfellow) is derived from clerical and refers to anyone in Holy Orders. The clerks who take your money at the cash register are distantly related through money.

StimsonInRehab

I am well aware of this, MJO, hence why I thought the apt comparison.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

What could possess a bishop to do such a thing?

Dixit_Dominus_44

Andrew Malton, is this actually true? I cannot find any record of it online....

M. Jackson Osborn

.

tomjaw

@Chris

What could possess a bishop to do such a thing?

'Possess' is just the word.

N.B. I won't post what our local bishops have said... We don't want to draw the eye of Mordor to our arrangements.

a_f_hawkins

Dixit_Dominus_44 - https://extraordinaryformhamilton.wordpress.com/

Dixit_Dominus_44

what a remarkable document; and not in a good way

CCooze

The faithful living are forbidden to marry in the traditional Rite; but as a concession, there may be a traditional nuptial Mass after the wedding: but permission must be asked first.

This makes me think that someone isn’t aware of how the Traditional nuptials work out, in the first place.

Jehan_Boutte

What I find especially appalling in this decree is the way the use of Latin is explicitely forbidden, even in the OF, for Penance, the Annointing of the sick, and for the Mass readings.

ServiamScores

Hirelings no longer run from the wolves... they sit right where they are and watch the flock get devoured without intervening (at times, egging the wolf on).

rich_enough

I can't see how a local bishop has the authority to change the rubrics of the older rite by forbidding the readings in Latin.

Plus the motu proprio and the dubia never forbade the readings in Latin - only that the readings were to be done in English (presumably in addition to Latin).

ServiamScores

Frankly, the hubris of these bishops to think that they have the right to cancel 1000+ years worth of tradition is pretty mind-boggling… I don’t care how hard you try and spin it.

Jeffrey Quick

reading of sacred scripture in Latin is forbidden.

Well, there go the Proper chants.

CCooze

reading of sacred scripture in Latin is forbidden.

Well, there go the Proper chants.

Hmm… maybe if they’re all sung… and not “read.”

TCJ

reading of sacred scripture in Latin is forbidden.
Well, there go the Proper chants.

Hmm… maybe if they’re all sung… and not “read.”

Exactly. We need to follow the rules exactly, right?

Salieri

reading of sacred scripture in Latin is forbidden.
Well, there go the Proper chants.

Hmm… maybe if they’re all sung… and not “read.”

His Excellency probably assumes that they're just hymns and songs.

tandrews

It's not read if it's memorized!

MarkB

The bishop's decree never referred to the "traditional Rite", which is a polemical editorialization in the original post. Instead, the bishop refers throughout to the 1962 Missal. He also states that these clarifications of policy implementation are to conform with the December instructions from the CDW about implementing Traditionis Custodes.

The 1962 Missal is more accurately referred to as the unreformed Rite, not the "traditional Rite", which term polemically presumes and implicitly conveys that the liturgical reform is unfaithful to tradition. The liturgical rites promulgated and revised in the wake of Vatican II's mandate that the preconciliar liturgy be reformed are a revision of liturgical tradition but not a rupture with the unreformed rites. Liturgical tradition has developed, and what it has developed from has been supplanted.

What has happened in Chicago and in Hamilton is going to happen more broadly in the Church, and those are only initial steps. Those initial steps are being taken to gradually acclimate Catholics attached to the unreformed rites to celebrating the reformed rites because the unreformed rites will in all likelihood eventually be phased out of use completely in the Roman Church, as the Bishop of the Diocese of Helena has just decreed for his diocese.

If you haven't heard about the Diocese of Helena, one link here:
https://latinmassmontana.com/news/bishop-vetter-cancels-all-1962-latin-masses-in-diocese-of-helena/

Schönbergian

What has happened in Chicago and in Hamilton is going to happen more broadly in the Church, and those are only initial steps. Those initial steps are being taken to gradually acclimate Catholics attached to the unreformed rites to celebrating the reformed rites because the unreformed rites will in all likelihood eventually be phased out of use completely in the Roman Church, as the Bishop of the Diocese of Helena has just decreed for his diocese.

Except that the Bishop of Hamilton has also prohibited any attempts at solemnity in the OF as well, as has been previously discussed on the forum. There is no place in Hamilton for a Mass said ad orientem in Latin using any music not found in two low-quality hymnals, and even kneeling to receive Communion is discouraged. I would never use Hamilton as an example for how to properly phase out the EF; the only kind of acclimation there that will occur is the type of rupture you say should not exist.

Salieri

I give thee thanks, O God, that thou hast not made me a Canadian.

chonak

As a commentator has noticed, His Excellency's letter also prohibits confessions and extreme unction in Spanish and French. Such expressions of pastoral solicitude are rare to find.

ServiamScores

The 1962 Missal is more accurately referred to as the unreformed Rite, not the "traditional Rite", which term polemically presumes and implicitly conveys that the liturgical reform is unfaithful to tradition.

1500 years of tradition, but we can't call it "traditional Rite". Got it.

The liturgical rites promulgated and revised in the wake of Vatican II's mandate that the preconciliar liturgy be reformed are a revision of liturgical tradition but not a rupture with the unreformed rites.

*cue unavoidable argument*

*country switches from driving on the right side of the road to driving on the left*
*absolute chaos and destruction ensues*
*pundits claim that its no different than before... after all, we are still driving cars!*
*powers that be are mad people don't like driving on the 'wrong' side of the road, so they start saying that you can't use blinkers anymore, or seatbelts, or listen to good music on the radio, because they are all vestiges of the old style of driving*
___
how am I doing so far?

ServiamScores

I find it delightfully ironic that priests are interdicted from saying masses in both forms in one day. It's perfectly fine for overworked priests who juggle two or three parishes to say 5 masses in a weekend; at least three on Sunday, but heaven forbid even one of them be in the old rite. Heaven forbid we should be able to clearly experience them side by side and draw any dangerous conclusions!

Salieri

Except that, in your analogy, the Ordinary Form of Driving would be driving on the Left; the Extraordinary Form would be driving on the Right: And obviously, one can't drive both on the Left and Right simultaneously: This analogy, therefore, supports Traditionis Custodes.

A better car analogy perhaps might be forcing a switch from gas/diesel to electric; since both cars would, theoretically be driving in the same direction: As indeed do the Classical Roman Rite and the Novus Ordo Mass theoretically do.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Mark,

"Traditional Rite" isn't polemical. It's simply true. It's an accurate description. There have been modifications over the years, but these modifications have maintained substantive continuity.

Analogy: As my grand-daughter grows up, her bones will get bigger, her hair longer, her corpus collosum more active, but she will still be the same beautiful girl she was at the moment of her conception. If she gets it into her head to disfigure herself with plastic surgery or wear clothing too tight or too loose to be properly modest, she won't stop being herself, but she'll be nearly unrecognizable. Her parents and uncles and grandparents will still love her, but wait until she outgrows the fads and encourage her to abandon them.

MarkB

And a few internet commenters have also called attention to the numerous spelling and grammatical errors in the Hamilton notice, even ineptly misspelling "Traditionis Custodes". SIgh.

The errors are very unfortunate, and it seems to happen more often than not in these notices. Bishops need to proofread and get competent advice. To have such stupid errors in an important policy document encourages ridicule and makes the bishops less likely to be taken seriously as knowledgeable clerics.

I'm speculating, but perhaps the stipulation that the vernacular means "English" only is because the communities that celebrate using the 1962 Missal in Hamilton are exclusively or overwhelmingly English-speaking communities. Perhaps no communities whose vernacular is other than English use the 1962 Missal in that diocese. The letter states that the instructions apply to those communities who celebrate using the 1962 Missal; it's limited in scope to those specific communities. So the stipulation that the vernacular equates with English might not be a lack of pastoral care but simply an acknowledgment of the reality that only English-speaking communities in that diocese celebrate the unreformed liturgical rites.

CCooze

better car analogy

Something like… moving the driver’s seat and steering wheel to the back seat, facing the opposite direction from which one is driving. It doesn’t matter that you are no longer facing your destination, nor that you’re less likely to make it there, even though the possibility is still there… after all, you’re still in a vehicle which has the capabilities of getting to where you want to go, we just want to dis- and re-orient you, while claiming you have the same basic tools you had before, we just think it makes more sense for you to have this new “perspective.”

Or, you could say everyone’s now forced to drive motorcycles.
Oh, you have kids? They’d like to come with you? Either choose 1 passenger if they fit behind you, or leave them behind, because we’re certain they’ll figure it all out when they’re old enough to do it on their own. This is better. You don’t deserve to travel in groups or closed spaces where you could communicate, criticize, etc…

a_f_hawkins

"Traditional Rite" should surely mean " the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970". That was not the 1962 edition, nor 1960, but " that published again by the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (27 January 1965), and with the modifications indicated in the Instructio altera (4 May 1967)". The 1965 editio typica replaced 1962 just as 1962 replaced 1960, whether 1967 replaced 1965 is not quite so certain, since there was no editio typica AFAIK.
1965 had the normal papal formula and an editio typica, 1967 also had the papal formula "to be faithfully observed by all concerned".

chonak

The idea that "traditional rite" is a loaded polemical term and "unreformed rite" is not -- well, it seems a rather arbitrary assertion.

chonak

By the way, isn't it unusual that liturgical regulations are being issued in that diocese not in the name of the diocesan bishop, but rather of an auxiliary who appears to be acting in his capacity as vicar general?

francis

yawn... satan is just having his temporary eclipse. pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Andrew_Malton

I found that "1962 Missal" versus "Missal of Popes St Paul VI and St John Paul II" to be a little... editorial... also. Also that "Missale Romanum (3d typical edition)" is a bit of a giveaway: surely he doesn't really mean the 1634 editio typica?

But yeah, I was being editorial. And polemical. As Bugs Bunny says, of course. But truthful: I didn't report anything false, I just hardened the edges a bit.

This is the first time, I think, that Bp Lobsinger has issued such “regulations”. But there was talk of him being put “in charge” of the traditional Mass “communities” here, although now I doubt that will happen. Nevertheless it may be the reason he had his name on this.

It's a pity, really: as Fr Lobsinger he was pretty friendly to tradition. Some of us were particularly pleased and a little surprised when he was made Bishop. Ah well, tempora mutantur. Et clerici in illis.

trentonjconn

When the bishops who swiftly and without mercy crack down on the Old Mass are almost universally the ones who take it upon themselves to forbid things like Latin and ad orientem in general, how can we see these moves as anything other than liturgically destructive malice? I fail utterly to see how moves like these can be applauded.

a_f_hawkins

chonak - there are precedents in Hamilton which have occasioned extensive comment on the forum more than once.

TC calls for

Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese ....
§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;

so Bp. Lobsinger would seem an appropriate choice. Of course he does not necessarily have a free hand, he may just be the diocesan enforcer.

CharlesW

The western church is way overdue for a good old-fashioned schism. It has been a few hundred years, so it's time.

CCooze

a good old-fashioned schism.

But no one can remove themselves from the Church anymore, therefore there is no such thing as a schismatic.

CharlesW

About the truth, but being eastern, I kind of take it all with a grain of salt.

SponsaChristi

Then not too far away, the Bishop of the Diocese of London also put restrictions on the EF.

CCooze

If [Harrison Butker, NFL kicker] could have a private, one-on-one meeting with Pope Francis about the new restrictions, what would you want to say to him?

I would say, “Holy Father, all the Catholics that I've been around that have a devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass and the traditional sacraments, they want to be saints. They want to get their children to heaven. They're not trying to have this big revolt against the Church. They're not denying the papacy. They love being Catholic and they want to be saints and they're doing it to the best of their ability. And now it’s being brought into question whether Catholics who prefer the traditional sacraments for the means of their salvation are even good Catholics at all. And I think that really isolates a lot of traditional Catholics.
"It makes them feel like they're outcasted and like they're being persecuted. And from my experience, these are just people that understand they are sinners. They want to have access to the sacraments. They want to be connected to the sacraments that have fed so many countless saints. And it seems like they're getting punished for their love and devotion to the faith and to the Eucharist and all of the church's sacraments.”

And more, here.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

I wonder how CNA managed to publish this interview. Is this the sort of thing they normally do?

CCooze

Chris, judging by the number of negative comments when I was reading it, it seems like it must be out of the ordinary for them.

Elmar

I just read this impressive article, including the comments (19 at this time). I can see a good balance between agreement and disagreement, the latter generally formulated in a respectful way with very few exceptions; same for the responses to these.

Maybe less respectful comments have been removed by moderators?

ghmus7

There is truly absolutley not reason to throw out Bendicts' formulation of the two rites as EF and OF. It is an easy and workable description, quite brilliant in a way. Calling the EF "unreformed rite" is not helpful and is merlely poleminal and political.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Should we thank CNA for its courageous reporting?

Chaswjd

Will Pope Francis be suppressing the Zaire Rite as Roman Rite contained in the Missal of St. Paul VI is the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Latin Church?

Elmar

Should we thank CNA for its courageous reporting?

Maybe they are simply less one-sided than some might think, just journalists with a healthy bit of curiosity.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Yes, I suppose that's possible. I don't read CNA, so I don't have any comparison point. I was asking out of genuine curiosity.

Nathan_the_Organist

I read CNA on a semi regular basis. I feel like they are fairly down the middle. They aren't a Church Militant, but they definitely aren't America Magazine either.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories