Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Motu Proprio! Motu Proprio! Motu Proprio! For Real This Time! | Main | New Curial Document on the Church »

July 08, 2007

Comments

RichR

Jimmy,

Very thourough, nice commentary, as usual - except for that last note on B16 surviving the implementation date. I never thought about it that way.

As a young person, I'm thrilled at this Motu Proprio. I'd also love to see you host a Catholic Answers Live episode on this document. The episode with the superior of the Christ the King order was spectacular!

Mary Kay

Jimmy, thank you for the thoughful commentary. I'm sure this will be fodder for discussion for quite a while.

Janice

I could have done without your last comment about Pope Benedict surviving the implementation date. Remember, although he's 80, the Pope appears to be in excellent health. People much younger than he is have done much less in the two years since he was elected Pope. And many of them have died at a much younger age. He's a very vigorous man. Just pray that he has a long and healthy pontificate and let it go at that.

bill bannon

Jim
On how big a group qualifies for a Sunday Latin Mass, I suspect that in very many parishes there will not be a reasonable quorum so that some pastors may urge very small groups to attend such on a weekday or on a weekday at his private Latin Mass. Or he will pick the least populated time slot on Sunday even if the group is very small.

AnnonyMouse

So if Fr. X is saying a private Mass in the Tridentine use, you can ask him if you can attend it, and he can say yes if no other law obstructs. Thus bishops are not to tell their priests "Okay, you can say the Tridentine use Mass in private, but you can't let anybody else be there with you."

This is good to know as we have a retired priest who does say this privately.

On the other hand, "we" (those who want to attend a latin mass in our area) will never be enough to qualify according to our priest, the use of Latin mass.

I still don't understand what the Ecclesia Dei is or how it can help us (less than 10 people). Are we guaranteed the right to have mass said in Latin?


A.Williams

Thanks for the excellent commentary Jimmy. This is where your blog shines! It's very hard to find such detailed and competent commentary on the web. So you provide an invaluable service to the Holy Church in this regard. The mandate to "Feed my sheep" is thereby fulfilled by your careful work, study and teachings on such important theological topics. To put it simply, you make the complex issues and aspects of the Faith easier to understand for all of us! I'm sure it's appreciated by every truly devout Catholic, and any other true servant of God, searching for truth. Thanks!

Tim J.

Seems like Jimmy hit on the major areas of potential conflict; how large a group is needed to justify a seperate TLM, and would doing so work to "unify" the parish, or not?

The priests in our parish have so much to do NOW, I think it would take some desire for the TLM on their part for them to even consider another Mass. Then, if they are personally inclined against the TLM, they can always say there aren't enough people requesting it OR that it would work against the unity of the parish.

They would likely end up before the Bishop on the matter sooner or later, and perhaps all the way to the PCED, but those things take time, and I don't know how many parishoners would be willing to see it through. Then, if the TLM is granted, you have an unwilling, unhappy priest, whom you have fought for years or months, presiding.

God willing, this will not be the case in most places, and pastors will be sensitive and obedient to the intent of this Motu Proprio. As Jimmy points out, though, there is potential for conflict.

Brian Day

Basically, what B16 is doing here is punting to the local level to sort out such situations...

That is a compromise that B16 gave to the Bishops in response to the alleged whining of certain bishops who feared loss of control over Masses celebrated within their Dioceses.

materfamilias

Jimmy,thanks for your thoughtful and thorough commentary. I'm very happy for everyone who feels that loves the TLM.
I have one concern that may affect those that manage to have a TLM as one of the masses in a regular parish--

"In Masses celebrated without the people, any priest of Latin rite, whether secular or religious, can use the Roman Missal published by Pope Blessed John XXIII in 1962 or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, on any day except in the sacred triduum."

I know that this passage applies specifically to private Masses. Nonethless I can see that pastors may use it to prevent congregations who celebrate the TLM from celebrating their own Mass during the triduum, which would be a great loss.

In my parish, where we have celebrated a Latin NO mass for 30 years, one of our pastors denied us the right to celebrate the Triduum separately from the rest of the parish, and the bishop upheld the decision.(note that there are 3 churches in our parish). We luckily found a monestary who lent us their chapel. Our current pastor has been quite supportive, even presiding from time to time. He gave us back our Triduum on the reasoning that we were an "established community" I'm worried, though, that the above passage may be used against us if we should have a pastor hostile to Latin masses.

Jarnor23

From Fr. Z's site, as I couldn't put it more clearly:

-----
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.
-----

So, if you're in a parish that primarily observes the extraordinary form, it is likely your pastor will choose to use it for the Triduum. If not, you will likely have one in the ordinary form. Which, honestly, shouldn't be some heinous suffering for people. Those Masses are usually performed as the highest form of the Novus Ordo in the parishes I've attended. Respectful, reverent, often with extensive Latin usage, and all the "smells and bells". I can't say if my parish decided to use the extraordinary form for the Triduum it would upset me, nor should it.

RichR

For those who find their parish priest reluctant to go through the process of learning the rubrics of a TLM, they might be more open to a Latin Novus Ordo Missae since they won't have to change rubrics, just language.

Ignatius Press makes a $4 worship aid for this type of thing.

michigancatholic

There are significant differences between the version posted on the USCCB BCL site and those on the Vatican Site. Please be aware of this.

Just like with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are games going on.

Warren Anderson

A word about the word "due", as in "let it (the Mass) enjoy due honor". I would take issue with the connotation that the word "due" necessarily allows "diss room". It may be helpful to think about the word this way: when you owe money on a mortgage, you owe the bank an agreed upon payment of money that is "due" by a specified date. In that sense, the payment is "required", i.e., "due", or else one might find that, regardless of one's subjective take on what (form of payment is offered) or when or how much (money) is due, that one may face sanctions of one kind or another (e.g., interest, lower credit rating). The word “due” is not really a subjective term in that context, nor is it a subjective term in the context of the citation in question. One could “diss” either use of the Mass, but then that person would necessarily be responsible for giving reason for such an interpretation in light of the honour that is “due”, i.e., required or demanded for the Mass by the faithful as articulated elsewhere in the citation [“The Roman Missal... is to (i.e., must) be regarded as the ordinary expression of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") of the Catholic Church of Latin rite, while the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and published again by Blessed John XXIII (must be regarded) as the extraordinary expression of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") and on account of its venerable and ancient use let it enjoy due honor.”). The key word is - “is” - which conditions the interpretation of the clauses that follow, hence my inclusion of the words “must” and “must be regarded as” in order to qualify the strength of the word “due”. The references to the “law of prayer” further reinforce a required honouring of the two uses of the Mass. The inclusion of the word “due” mandates an attitude of obligation, an obligation that recognizes that a response of honour is required toward the Mass. Mr. Akin acknowledges the import of the passage he quotes by stating: “This is the legally binding stuff...”. Such import conditions the interpretation of the word “due”. If the context is a legal and binding one (much like the mortgage payment analogy given above), then there is not so much wiggle room (to diss), is there?

Of course, we are dealing with an unofficial translation here, as Mr. Akin has mentioned. Perhaps subsequent renditions of the citation will provide the stronger statement for which Mr. Akin is looking. Thank you, Mr. Akin, for an otherwise superb analysis, and for your always insightful writing.

FrChuckZ

"I haven't checked the Latin on this, but note that in the English there is an ambiguity about what the expression "as the extraordinary form of the liturgy of the church" is modifying. Is it modifyingthe verb "celebrate" (i.e., it's okay to celebrate it as the extraordinary form of the liturgy) or is it modifying "never abrogated" (i.e., it was never abrogated as the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but it was abrogated as the ordinary form). I'll let you know if this can be resolved."

In Latin:

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.

Both "never abrogated" and "extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church," as well as "promulgated" are modifying "typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962" (all accuasative case). In other words, the document is saying that the typical edition of the Roman Missal, 1962 edition, was never abroagated, and that it is an extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church. So the correct answer is that it is licet to celebrate it as the extraordinary form of the litutgy. It is not saying that it was never abrogated as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy, but simply that it was never abrogated. This is also clear from the Pope's accompanying letter to the bishops: "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."

Deacon Joe

Jimmy said:

Besides the seven sacraments, the liturgy of the hours (as found in the Roman Breviary) is the other official liturgical action of the Church. This norm allows for its celebration according to the 1962 edition. No permission from the pastor or bishop is needed. It can be done by any priest--as the law is written (usual caveats appying).

Deacons, too, may use the 1962 Breviary. We're clerics ;-)

Pax,
Deacon Joe

anon

This is what might (maybe 'will') happen in many parishes:

1) How many people does it take to 'trigger' the extraordinary rite? I work in a parish that already has mass in 3 languages. If ten people came to us with the desire for a mass in a fourth language, would we comply? No. Because the priests are already stretched thin by the three language groups we serve, because it would mean added expense for the music (which the collection from ten people might not cover) and because we don't have the 'slot' available on a Sunday. I can't imagine that we are that unique. You can also factor in that we have two priests avaialable, but something like 60% (?) of the parishes in the US have one priest assigned to them. How would he manage?

2) I work in a diocese with three parishes which provide the 1962 missal mass under the old indult. I figured out a while back that no one in the diocese is more than about a 30 minute drive from one of these parishes. Even with a generous estimate about how many attend each of the 1962 masses, I don't think that more than about .4% of the mass-going public avails themselves of the opportunity now. In our parish, that would be 5 people, at that rate of attendance. Note what I said above about resources being stretched. I would just give them the phone numbers and Mapquest directions to where the mass they prefer is already being offered.

3) All of that being said, one hasn't even begun to factor in the purchase of new liturgical books, the training that goes into saying the mass according to the old missal, etc. (The one priest I know who is chomping at the bit can't really pronounce Latin. So, he needs a bit more practice, I would say.) And, as I said above, there is the expense of the music ministry. (We could recreate the hurried and silent 15 minute masses of my childhood, but I don't think that these fulfill anyone's hopes (across the spectrum) for something beautiful, dignified, with full, conscious and active participation.)

So, what do I think will happen? A big yawn. No huge changes. Maybe a few more opportunities to experience the 1962 missal. And we roll on to the next thing that will clamor for attention.

FrChuckZ

For comparison, here are the norms that were in force under the indult of 1984 (and the 1988 Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, which explicitly said the norms of that original indult remained in force):

"a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.

c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.

e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application."

This motu proprio represents a significant change in the law, there is no question about that. No longer do the norms require there be no doubt that those desiring liturgy according to the 1962 Missal do not call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the 1970 a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.

c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.

e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application."

There is no doubt this motu proprio represents a significant change in the law. First, no longer is there the requirement that there be no doubt that the faithful requesting liturgy according to the 1962 Missal do not share the positions of those who call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the 1970 Missal, although the Pope in his letter to the bishops acknowledges that priests who totally exclude the newer rites as a matter of principle would prevent them from experiencing full communion. Still, it is significant that the Pope eliminated this condition from the new norms governing the use of the 1962 Missal.

Second, it is also significant that the requirement that such celebrations be limited to those who request it, and in the places authorized by the bishop, but not in parishes, except in extraordinary cases. It is very significant the new norms not only do not explicitly reject the possibility of allowing celebration according to the 1962 Missal in parishes except in extraordinary cases, but actively encourages such celebrations in parishes.

It appears the norm that these celebration must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin, except for the norm about the readings, which can be in the vernacular with approved texts.

It is also quite significant that the Pope's letter to bishops said that new saints and some new prefaces can and should be inserted in the old missal, which changes the old norm that there must be no interchanging of texts and rites between the two missals. This indicates the Pope's willingness to allow the extraordinary form of the Liturgy to develop and grow alongside the ordinary form of the Liturgy, as opposed to the previous norms which essentially froze the old liturgy in time. It will be interesting to see the reaction of the most radical traditionalists who despise the 1970 Missal to the possibility that the 1962 Missal could become "infected" with the Vatican II liturgical reforms.

Maureen

The Pope is giving us an opportunity to widen things, and it's up to us to take it up. Slowly or quickly, as we can and wish to.

Re: calendars

This is important, because many people who love or would love the extraordinary form if offered, would also like to celebrate newer saints. I mean, think of all the saints important to traditionalists who aren't on the old calendar: Juan Diego, Mother Cabrini, Padre Pio....

Michael

Art. 3. If communities or institutes of consecrated life or societies of apostolic life of either pontifical or diocesan rite desire to have a celebration of holy Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962 in the conventual or "community" celebration in their own oratories, this is allowed.

From the private Masses discussed in the previous norm, we turn to what you might call semi-private Masses--i.e., those celebrated for a particular community but not for the general public. The pope here allows such communities to have Masses celebrated on an occasional basis without permission, but when it comes to having them more hyabitually than that, the situation is different:

I believe the permission given here is more expansive than your analysis indicates. The MP's reference to "institutes of consecrated life or societies of apostolic life" includes priestly societies like the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institue of Christ the King. They are typically established with oratories by the local bishop, at least if he is feeling generous. They are given by this MP the right to continue practicing the liturgy according to their own regulations. This perhaps codifies an extant condition.

Becky

I received this link and need some input

http://www.catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com

the questions on Peter seem to be valid and sound...
thanks

______
ad majorem gloriam

Michael

The Catholic.com website is a good place to start. This article in particular should be useful to you.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9906fea4.asp

bearing

As a layperson who likes to pray the Liturgy of the Hours:

(1) Where can I get a 1962 Roman Breviary?

(2) Is the whole thing in Latin?

(3) If I know how to pray the modern LOTH (which prayers go where, etc.), will I have to learn anything new to pray the 1962 breviary?

Mike

Just had feedback from the Catholic Youth Conference in Canberra, Sydney,
Australia this weekend. When the MP was announced at the conference, it was followed by huge applause by the 200 youth present - many of whom, especially the leaders, are already "Traddies". Two of the three bishops present were enthusiastic about the MP, many youth attended the Solemn High Mass for the first time. The MP was in everyone's conversations.

There is a real possibility in the future that the "extraordinary" Mass may become the Mass of choice by young people far removed from the arguments and prejudices of their parents and grandparents.

FrChuckZ

I know this is off topic, but Becky included a question in a post here about a link she received from an anti-catholic website arguing against Peter as the Rock, and against papal primacy in the Church. Here is the link:

http://www.catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com

The post Becky refers to is too long to respond to, and gives 25 reasons from scripture why the the Church is wrong on papal primacy. I would respond with other questions, such as, why, in Luke 22:31-32, does Jesus say to Peter alone (because in the Greek Jesus is speaking to Peter, and Jesus uses the singular form of the pronoun you), "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." To me, this is proof that the only assurance we have that Satan will not sift us like wheat is to stay united to that single person to whom Jesus said, I have prayed for you, that your faith might fail: Peter, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, his successors for those who would believe in Christ after Peter was martyred.

If we were to say that Jesus did not provide for the successors of Peter as the way for those who would come to believe in Christ after Peter died, we would have to re-write history, which says that is precisely what happened. Even today, can anyone doubt that the popes alone, in modern times, have been able to withstand the assaults by secularists on such truths as the dignity of all human life, from conception until natural death, and that there is an intrinsic relationship between the act of conjugal love in marriage and the transmission of human life that renders artificial means of birth control gravely immoral?

Why did the non-Catholic ecclesial communities, which also taught that contraception was evil until the early twentieth century, cave in to this lie? Because they were not united to Peter, for whom Christ prayed that his faith would not fail. There is much more I could say in response to that post, but ultimately, what we believe about St. Peter is an article of faith, and the best we can do by human reason is argue why it is reasonable to beleive it as an article of faith. Make no mistake, and do not let these anti-catholic ravings shake your faith.

John Lilburne

Jimmy wrote: "Yet there does not seem to have been a document abrogating the Tridentine use, creating the impression that it could still be used without a special concession. This confusing situation is one that B16 clarifies, both later in the motu proprio and especially in the accompanying apostolic letter. See subsequent commentary for more."

But there were documents, for example, Instruction Constitutione Apostolica of 20 October 1969:

"14. The individual conferences of bishops are to decide on the date when the texts of the new Roman Missal are to become obligatory, except for the cases that are specified in this Instruction nos. 20-21. It is better that such a date be no later than 28 November 1971 ...

IV. EXCEPTION

19. Elderly priests who celebrate Mass without a congregation and who might encounter serious difficulty in taking up the new Order of Mass and the new texts of the Roman Missal and Lectionary for Mass, may, with the consent of their Ordinary, keep to the rites and texts now in use.

20. Special cases of priests who are infirm, ill, or otherwise disabled are to be submitted to this Congregation.

Pope Paul VI approved this Instruction on 18 October 1969 and ordered its publication for the exact observance of all concerned."

(From Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, pages 536 - 537).

And another of 14 June 1971:
"3. Continued use, in whole or in part, of the Missale Romanum in the 1962 editio typica, as emended by the 1965 and 1967 decrees and of the Breviarium Romanum formerly in use is allowed, with the consent of the Ordinary and only in celebrations without a congregation, for all those who because of their advanced years or illness find serious difficulties in using the New Order of Mass in the Roman Missal, the Lectionary for Mass, or the book of the liturgy of the hours. ..."

(From Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, page 545). More at http://www.romanrite.com/summorum.html .

FrChuckZ

Correction:

My prievious post said, erroneously, "this is proof that the only assurance we have that Satan will not sift us like wheat is to stay united to that single person to whom Jesus said, I have prayed for you, that your faith might fail: Peter, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, his successors for those who would believe in Christ after Peter was martyred." Obviously, I meant to say Jesus prayed that Peter's faith would NOT fail.

FrChuckZ

bearing wrote:

"As a layperson who likes to pray the Liturgy of the Hours:

(1) Where can I get a 1962 Roman Breviary?

(2) Is the whole thing in Latin?

(3) If I know how to pray the modern LOTH (which prayers go where, etc.), will I have to learn anything new to pray the 1962 breviary?"

(1) I got one many years ago at a Catholic conference at the booth of a reseller of older Church documents and texts. It is in three volumes, if I remember correctly.

(2) In my edition, I know at least the lessons, which we today call the second reading at Office of Readings, were in English, and if I remember correctly, my edition had a translation of the psalms, but I am not certain of that. I do remember using it before I entered the seminary and did not know Latin, but I didn't really know what I was doing - LOL - and didn't know much Latin, so the answer is no, at least my edition was not all in Latin.

(3) I did look at the rubrics, and it was structured similarly. One major change included suppression of the hour of prime, between lauds and terce. There were also special liturgical days called "Ember Days," (see this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05399b.htm) that affected which prayers were said, and the rubrics themselves did not give a good way to tell when they occurred. Other than that, if you are familiar with the LOTH currently in use, you should be able to figure out most of it by carefully reading the rubrics. There are propers, commons, the ordinary, etc.

FrChuckZ

Regarding the 1962 edition of the LOTH, one other major change was that the psalter was prayed on a one-week cycle, but now it is a four-week cycle. It definitely will take longer to pray the 1962 edition of LOTH, but you will probably, as a benefit, memorize most psalsms if you pray it daily. I know I have memorized the psalms that come weekly, such as Psalm 51, and the psalms at night prayer, but have not, as a rule, memorized the psalms that occur less frequently in the current edition of the LOTH.

Deacon Jim

According to my reading of the RM John XXII 1962 there is no provison for the ministry of the deacon except in the Solemn celebration of the Mass. In that event, he is the proclaimer of the Gospel and presumably an ordinary minister of Communnion. The Pius V Mass did not arogate the role of deacon but let the celebrant absorb their functions. It wowuld seem approproate that one of the orders of sacred ministry renewed by Vatican II should be represented at the Sacred Liturgy where available. I would presume that the Tridentine ritual for baptism and Marriage would be done by deacons who presently have such faculties in the Novus Ordo. Has anyone found any directives for dacons in the commentaries?

bearing

Thanks FrChuckZ!

Josh

Bearing:

Finding a 1962 Breviary can be difficult and expensive, since the Breviarium Romanum has been out of print for a long time. They show up on ebay all the time, but often at exorbitant prices. The number of volumes varies depending on the particular publisher. Pre-1962 breviaries were often printed in 4 volumes, but the breviary of John XXIII is often found in two volumes - a great deal of Matins was removed in his reforms, thus reducing the number of volumes necessary to print it.

There are editions that have vernacular in them, but using a vernacular edition required a special indult - most editions are entirely in Latin, including the rubrics and forematter. The good news is that Baronius Press (the publishing house for the FSSP) is in the process of reprinting the 1962 Breviary in a parallel Latin-English format - it is expected to be completed this year, but it has experienced delays. One thing to take notice of in regard to this coming edition - it uses the traditional Vulgate Psalter of St. Jerome, rather than the new Psalter promulgated by Pius XII in 1945. The FSSP has permission to use the traditional Psalter. The new motu proprio does not mention this issue at all, so based on what is said in the document, I presume that the Pian psalter, which was in the typical edition of the 1962 Breviary, must be used by those using the 1962 Breviary to fulfill their obligation to say the Office. Of course, this is not of direct concern for a layperson, since they are not under canonical obligation to say the Office.

If you are comfortable with the LOTH, then the Breviary will not be totally foreign - it will just require a period of adjusment. The biggest change will be the calendar and ranking of feasts, though this is much less complicated than pre-1955 editions. In my case, switching to the Breviary from the LOTH has helped me understand the Office in both forms so much better. I have been using a 1943 edition and following the rubrics contained there, but I intend to switch to the 1962 rubrics now that its position is clarified in the universal Church. If you can find an older edition of the Breviary (like I did), it is not difficult to adjust for the 1962 rubrics, plus you get all that extra Matins material for extra reading. Depending on the year of the edition you got, you might have to find supplements for feasts added between the year of your breviary and 1962 (my 1943 does not include St. Joseph the Worker or the Queenship of the BVM, though I have supplements). In order to discuss in a more in-depth fashion moving to the Breviarium Romanum, feel free to email me at "aquinas138 at gmail dot com". I'd be happy to offer advice to anyone who would like some advice from someone who has made the switch and mostly has things figured out.

I. Shawn McElhinney

Jimmy's contentions about the older liturgy being able to be celebrated without specific permission and that there are no documents specifying this are both erroneous. Furthermore, the idea that we had to wait until Benedict XVI to receive clarification on the whole "juridical abrogation" question is also wrong. I cover those subjects to some extent in a posting to one of my weblogs which can be read HERE. Having noted those things though, I want to clarify lest there are any misunderstandings that nothing written in the above posting is intended to come across as in anyway refusing assent to the recently promulgated motu proprio which I receive serenely as His Holiness has requested.


Scott W

The USCCB site has a pretty nice Q&A regarding the Motu Proprio.

Check it out.

Leo

anon identifies some practical issues of 'supply and demand', which I expect will result in a specialised 'niche market' which a minority will regularly enjoy and which the majority might sample occasionally, initially out of curiosity and variety.

As with food, perhaps some of the best features of the 'niche' celebrations might cross over to 'mainstream' celebrations eg a greater athmosphere of reverence and awe.

More importantly, I would suggest that in the pursuit of charity and unity in the church, those who consider themselves 'traditional' avoid any appearance of triumphalism and those who consider themselves 'progressive' overcome any 'threat reflexes' but instead think of this as a legitimate expression of catholic liturgical diversity.

bearing

Josh, thank you for the detailed answer. I am currently using the "modern" 1-volume breviary and enjoy it very much -- I know many people complain about the ICEL translation, but it does not bother me much. I probably would continue using the "ordinary" breviary most of the time but would like to have a Latin one just to mix it up a little and to learn some more Latin. So maybe (unless I come across a low-priced old breviary) I will wait until the parallel Latin-English version you mention comes into print, as it sounds like exactly what I need.

Do you know if the modern breviary is available in Latin (much as the Novus Ordo may be celebrated in Latin)?

susananne

In my diocese there is a parish that celebrates the Latin Mass. My parents are parishoners and some people drive up to 2hrs to get to that church.

I don't think the idea is to necessarily add another mass to already overworked parishes, but rather change an existing mass. We have a parish nearby that is so big it offers masses 2 at a time and also in several languages. Maybe a nearby parish that isn't so burdened could take on the Latin Mass. Another nearby parish has been awaiting this announcement and I think will be ready to go in September. In other words, not all parishes will or have to offer it. There are plenty of options and solutions.

Also,homeschooling has become so popular and I know a lot of home educators want a Latin mass. My children are in public school but both take Latin. I realize it's not church Latin that they are studying, but they are both very excited about the prospect of a Latin Mass being more available.

So, not a very scientific analysis here, but I just wanted to make the point that in some places people drive for hours to get to the Latin Mass, others ready and willing to support it, and plenty of parishes available.

LJ

"I received this link and need some input

http://www.catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com

the questions on Peter seem to be valid and sound...
thanks

______
ad majorem gloriam"

To save time just click on "Becky" and it takes you to Andre's blog or Becky's, take your pick. This blog appears to promote some form of Seventh Day Adventism.

May God bless Andre as long as he is still seeking the truth.

LJ

One thing that the Motu Proprio does not appear to specifically cover is the broadcast of the "extraordinary rite." I'm sure EWTN would be interested in the answer to that question.

Rob F.

Bearing wrote:
Do you know if the modern breviary is available in Latin (much as the Novus Ordo may be celebrated in Latin)?

So glad you asked! I bought mine at http://www.paxbook.com/algorithmiS/servusPrimus?iussum=monstraScriptumEditum&numerus=1218 and it is magnificent! If you can afford it (ninety bucks times four -- luckily I bought it before I got married :) I highly recommend it. Be warned, however, that you may find your satisfaction with the English version decreasing the more you use the Latin; the Latin is truly beautiful.

Curious

The issue of the clashing calendars really bothers me. I like the NO cycle of readings and calendar. The TLM seems more cramped, calendrically and reading-wise. Seems to me that this calendar issue will detract from the unity of worship within the Latin church. Too bad we can't take the best from both forms.

Chris

1. An observation: I agree with Warren Anderson about the phrase "due honor." In fact, this is probably directed more towards the branch of traditionalists who don't see the Pauline mass as "due" any honor.

2. A question: Could the ommission of holy orders from the list of Sacraments that can be celebrated under the old rite have something to do with the sub-orders that were abolished?

3. A suggestion: Let's be realistic: we all know that our priests have their hands full as it is. How is a pastor of four parishes, each with a Sunday Mass, going to work in a Tridentine Mass? Probably not gonna happen unless he personally has a strong devotion to it.

In such cases, a first step in getting the Tridentine Mass celebrated more would be to find other people who want it. See what kind of numbers you have and what kind of geographical spread/concentration you have. Perhaps your parish doesn't have much demand for it or a priest who could celebrate it, but if you group together with others in, say, your county or more appropriately, your vicariate, perhaps a Mass could be obtained at that level. A generous bishop should be able to work something out with you, but it seems to me that the best thing to do is establish demand for the Pian-Johannine Mass by finding other people who desire it.

BillyHW

So are the 1970s officially over?

materfamilias

Jarnor23 said:

"Those Masses are usually performed as the highest form of the Novus Ordo in the parishes I've attended. Respectful, reverent, often with extensive Latin usage, and all the "smells and bells"."

You are lucky. The last English Easter Mass I attended at our parish included NOT ONE hymn specific to Easter. Just the same old pablum. Give me Victimae Paschale Laudes any day. But although I enjoy the Latin Mass I can live without it if I can find a place to worship reverently. In our parish that means the Latin Mass or nothing.

Y

Rick

I am not sure if others have already made this point. If they have, pardon me.

One of the great things about SP is that it has the potential of lessening the polemics (of which I have sometimes engaged) between conservatives and traditionalists -- both of whom are usually orthodox. Now, since both the Trid and the Novus are legitimate options AND that the bishops will not be able to squelch the requests for Trids (as they have done since 1988), conservatives and traditionalists can come together again on the important questions of doctrine. Divide and conquer is always the tactic of the evil one. Conservatives and traditionalists should be unified to fight the heterodox progressives, who are the real danger (in human terms) to the Church militant.

The 1970s are over! Liturgical sanity has been restored.

I think too that Benedict wants to use this to jumpstart his program of the reform of the reform. I think that the practice of regularly offered Trids can only help novus priests to say that liturgy more reverently and traditionally.

BobCatholic

because it would mean added expense for the music (which the collection from ten people might not cover) and because we don't have the 'slot' available on a Sunday.

A low mass doesn't require music. Gregorian chant is sufficient. And a Saturday evening slot can be done, or a Sunday afternoon slot.

If there's a will, there's a way.

BobCatholic

I received this link and need some input

Becky, please don't post anti-catholic stuff here. Take that site to the Catholic Answers forums where it will be refuted to the hilt.

Posting that here is doing nothing but derailing the discussion.

Steve Cavanaugh

For those wishing to pray the modern LOTH in Latin, Fr. Peter Stravinskas has edited an edition with side-by-side Latin and English for Lauds and Vespers. It's available via Amazon.com or directly from the publisher, Newman House Press. The blurb on the publisher's page states:

This Latin/English, 1600-page prayer book contains the texts from the Liturgy of the Hours for Lauds (Morning Prayer) and Vespers (Evening Prayer) for the entire liturgical year (although it does not contain the Proper of Saints, so some Holy Days are missing).

The purpose of this volume is to promote the use of Latin in the Liturgy of the Hours. It contains all the material in the first edition, plus the texts for the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter, as well as a section on “How to Pray Lauds and Vespers.” There are colorful ribbons to help mark one’s place.

For the older version of the Breviary, Angelus Press (the SSPX pubishing house) has a version with the complete Sunday Offices and the offices of Prime, Sext and Compline for the rest of the week. In Latin and English.

Baronius Press, mentioned above as preparing an edition of the Breviary, is located at http://www.baroniuspress.com/, and allows you to sign up for notices on forthcoming books.

Finally, for printed books, the Diurnale Romanum is available from Southwell Press and other UK resellers (it didn't show up on Amazon.com). This is the Breviary, minus the Office of Matins. I believe this edition is only in Latin.

It should be noted as well that both Baronius Press and Angelus Press publish Daily Missals of the 1962 Mass.

For those interested in the older form of the Breviary, but whose Latin is shaky and who don't have an obligation to the Office, the Anglican Breviary, published by the Anglican Parishes Association, publsher for the Anglican Catholic Church (one of the Continuing Anglican Churches) may be of interest. It is an Elizabethan English translation of the pre-Vatican II Breviary.

The Breviary is also available online.

caine

I think the comparison table on page 27 of the USCCB newsletter is a wee bit skewed. (see link in Scott W's post above)

I was glad to read their acknowledgement of the Pope's actual reasons for the MP in question 6. Its the first time I've seen or heard the USCCB admit the existence of liturgical goofiness within their borders. Acknowledging the 800 lb gorilla in the room (if even indirectly) is a good start!

caine

And how awesome was it that B16 said the new Norms are meant to "free the Bishops" from having to evaluate various requests for the older rite!

I hope he continues to free his brother Bishops from other tasks that have been so burdensome for them - such as actually enforcing correct usage of the newer rite. (chortle, chortle...)

Esau

"I received this link and need some input

http://www.catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com

the questions on Peter seem to be valid and sound...
thanks

______
ad majorem gloriam"

To save time just click on "Becky" and it takes you to Andre's blog or Becky's, take your pick. This blog appears to promote some form of Seventh Day Adventism.

May God bless Andre as long as he is still seeking the truth.

Posted by: LJ | Jul 9, 2007 7:38:49 AM


Becky is indeed Andre.

ANDRE WAS BANNED from this blog.

In other threads, he had, in fact, demonstrated that he was more interested in spreading calumny about the Catholic Church than he was in engaging in an actual discussion regarding what Catholicism really entailed.

DO NOT GIVE HEED TO ANDRE (aka "BECKY") ANTI-CATHOLIC NONSENSE.

ANDRE, IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS CATHOLICISM, AS I'VE TOLD YOU BEFORE, FIRST KNOW WHAT CATHOLICISM IS ALL ABOUT VS. YOUR TWISTED NOTIONS REGARDING IT!

Simon-Peter Vickers-Buckley

If you are having three masses in three languages, perhaps you ought to stop pandering as that IS what you are doing.

"If ten people came to us with the desire for a mass in a fourth language, would we comply? No."

How nice of you. It isn't just about the language, is it? Your objection is a little deeper than that, isn't it? And who many came to you viz. the second language? The third? What if 100 showed up for the fourth? 500? What was the trigger for the second, the third? Have those numbers gone up, stayed the same, decreased? Why are you wasting time and resources offering three of the EXACT same masses to people who, in some cases, ought to learn the language of the dominant linguistic group? Your playing the old "pastoral difficulties" card, difficulties you have created. We have a similar issue in my own parish, it is pandering.

Latin is the official and universal language of the Church: not ebo, not vietnamese, not english, not spanish, not polish...and there is no "English Mass of Paul VI" nor "Spanish" nor "Russian" there is the Mass of Paul VI in the vernacular (and what about the Latin?).

Wherever you are, you ARE somewhere (most likely) with a dominant language, let me guess...English? Catholics ought to learn the language of their neighbours. I am probably wrong, but I wonder if the intent of of Paul VI was to permit Mass in a myriad of languages (talk about division?) in parishes situated within a "dominant linguistic group".

I am sorry, but, in the US for instance, the first you offer should be in English Mass of Paul VI (what about Latin?) Then you offer the Mass of 1962, and THEN and only then do you offer Mass in other languages. In anycase, what happened to Paul VI in Latin as intended? Oh...

Esau

About Latin, folks, can we please keep in mind the wise words of then Cardinal Ratzinger:

"Generally, I think it was good to translate the liturgy in the spoken languages because we will understand it; we will participate also with our thinking. But a stronger presence of some elements of Latin would be helpful to give the universal dimension, to give the possibilities that in all the parts of the world we can see “I am in the same Church.”"


Let us therefore remember that LATIN IS PART OF OUR CATHOLIC HERITAGE!

Tim J.

Andre's tactics are as deceptive as his false logic. Welcome to the Disinformation Superhighway.

I do hope this Motu Proprio will lessen somewhat the tendency for those closely aligned with one Mass to view adherents of the other Mass as second class citizens.

This goes both ways.

We should be deeply grateful for any Mass at which we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. The best Mass is whichever one you're at (pardon the grammar).

I also am hopeful that we might see more reverence at ALL our Masses, and less glib "creativity".

Esau

Tim J.,

I do hope this Motu Proprio will lessen somewhat the tendency for those closely aligned with one Mass to view adherents of the other Mass as second class citizens.

This goes both ways.


Apparantly, what you say here is, unfortunately, true.

Interestingly enough, on this blog, I have often defended the validity of the Novus Ordo and the 2nd Vatican Council.

However, in actual life, I have often found myself defending the preservation of the Tridentine Rite and the timeless wisdom of Catholic tradition.

Needless to say, I find little difference between these two parties of which such vital elements of Catholicism need to be continuously safeguarded against.

Both wrongly seek what is nothing else but a breach of Catholic beliefs and tradition; not to mention, a break with our Christian Past as well as its continuation into the Present!

Pseudomodo

We have an abundance of latin mass churches in Canada but unfortunatley a very few of them are a bit snobish about 'latin'. You know it's all got to be in latin, latin, latin....

Or so they say...However nice latin is, they simply cannot read, speak or translate it and for that matter niether can I.

The vast majority of the non-snobish trads are quite willing to learn latin and appreciate it. to these I am happy to be friends with and (tongue in cheek) I refer to them as 'Catholics of the Strict Observance".

Esau

Dear Jimmy Akin,

About what you have written here:

He also stresses that the latter missal is to be treated with "due honor," which is an effort to tell people not to diss it, but the inclusion of the word "due" is a subjective term that creates "diss" room. ("Oh, yeah. We're giving it all the honor that it's due . . . which happens to be not much.") This would have been stronger if the word "due" had been omitted.

I believe "due honor" as used in the Motu Proprio corresponds more objectively to "right tribute" rather than the subjective interpretation given it here.

In fact, "Due honor" is a term commonly used by even the Fathers of the Church as well as past popes.

For example, St. John of Damascus spoke of the honor due to the Saints.

I think, as well, that the whole system of latria, dulia, and hyperdulia also revolves around the concept of "due honor" in terms of 'right tribute' given to each of the respective people: Saints, Mary, God.

Pope Pius XII himself utilized the same term in Mystici Corporis Christi:

"If the faithful strive to live in a spirit of lively faith, they will not only pay due honor and reverence to the more exalted members of this Mystical Body, especially those who according to Christ's mandate will have to render an account of our souls, but they will take to their hearts those members who are the object of our Savior's special love: the weak, We mean, the wounded, and the sick who are in need of material or spiritual assistance; children whose innocence is so easily exposed to danger in these days, and whose young hearts can be molded as wax; and finally the poor, in helping whom we recognize, as it were, through His supreme mercy, the very person of Jesus Christ."

Also, remember in Tobit 12:7:

"A king's secret it is prudent to keep, but the works of God are to be declared and made known. Praise them with due honor. Do good, and evil will not find its way to you."

However, I am very much grateful for your Commentary here, Jimmy, and thanks for the links as well!

John

It was posted:

"The vast majority of the non-snobish trads are quite willing to learn latin and appreciate it. to these I am happy to be friends with and (tongue in cheek) I refer to them as 'Catholics of the Strict Observance"."

Why would you label someone who wants to worship as catholics have done for centuries as "snobs"? Would you call your mother of grandmother who were catholic before the changes took place from 1962-1970 as "snobs"?

And so what is wrong with being "Catholic of the Strict Observance"?

That is a great compliment you have actually paid them tongue in cheek and exactly why Our Holy Father has issued this Moto because so many have taken things to far and like a parent, once a child sees they can get away with something, they push for the next. And we as humans born with original sin and always in temptation (recall the words of the "Our Father"?) need rules that are clear and concise, and the traditional teachings and mass offered just that

Deo Gratias for B16!!

Some Day

Mr. Jimmy,

If your reffering to him surviving an assasination, I think because of his very italian-style of writing this mp (it is definetely not a german thing) he should not gain the ire of those who work against the Church. St. Pius X reached that limit, John Paul I was about to, and they (as many of those who know the way things really are)in turn were ki...died.

Yet the wind are changing, and this year will give many splendorous things in the line of the great punishments, as sin is reaching those limits that God said no to in Sodom and the Great Flood, but also those who are truly champions of Mary are also gaining an unprecedented strength in the world.

But again, excellent way of presenting the MP on part of His Holiness.

He is the Prime of Vatican Diplomacy.
He did it with nobility and tact. No side can complain, and yet it is critical of both extremes.
Even before, when I would see his picture hanging in my home, I wish I could pray to him, for I can only pray and hope he is a saint!

Long Live Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Chris, Successor of Saing Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican State and Servant of the Servants of God!

Petrus Imperat!

Rick

Look, not just traditionalists are guilty of snobbery. When I asked my novus bishop for an indult 10 years ago, he sniffed that "that mass is a relic of the dark ages...." Now that is snobbery!

Some Day

Well, now the "burden" of choosing who apt to celebrate TR mass is not on the Pastors, but rather the individual cleric. So the poor bishop does not have another load on his shoulders. How dare you insult a Prince of the Church! Snobbery?! He was concerned with the state of your soul!

Gosh did you not read the MP and Letter!


"War is just an extreme form of Diplomacy"

- I forgot

Esau

Rick,

I believe that's what Tim J. and I were attempting to point out earlier.

There is that "attitude" from both sides of the fence.

In the end, it almost seems that the extremes from both sides, the Rad Trad and the Liberal, end up declaring themselves as Supreme Pontiff.

With all that has taken place recently, I just thank Pope John Paul II for having prevented then Cardinal Ratzinger from retiring and helping pave the way for him to become our current Pope!

francis 03

Your playing the old "pastoral difficulties" card, difficulties you have created. We have a similar issue in my own parish, it is pandering.

My goodness. You talk about numbers-- how many souls are you willing to trade for the ideal of a common language? People might never muster up the courage to even go to Mass if they can't talk to anyone there. I agree that Latin is the ideal for multilingual communities, but as almost no Catholics are familiar with prayer in Latin we obviously are not at the ideal. In the meantime, Our Lord had some serious things to say about millstones that I think should keep us from dismissing too lightly good-faith efforts at flexiblity.

Jeff`

With regard to Article 6:

It would appear that some commentators believe that this means that the reading cycle from the Novus Ordo may be used. You silence on this point seems to indicate that you agree with me that it means no such thing.

With regard to Article 2:

I understand that all private Masses of any kind are prohibited in any case during the Easter Triduum. If that is the case, all the last provision does is to make clear that this applies even in cases where a priest wishes to celebrate privately with the older use. I.e., nothing in the Motu Proprio changes this rule about private Masses in the Triduum.

Michael R

If the previous Missal was never abrogated, does that mean that every priest can use it for private Masses even now, without waiting for September 14?

John

It was posted:

"In the end, it almost seems that the extremes from both sides, the Rad Trad and the Liberal, end up declaring themselves as Supreme Pontiff"

Let it be clear that one can be a traditionalist and not declare themselves the supreme pontiff. A "Rad trad" is a stupid term as being "too Catholic" or "too bound to faith and tradition" and is far less dangerous than those bent on continued liturgical expirimentation, female ordination, and the destruction of all that was Catholic for centuries. A cry for a return to sanity, sanctity, reverence, piety, sacred and love for Our Lord, the mass and sacraments is all that a "traditionalist" asks. Is that asking for to much?

If it was not for those traditionalists, many I guess the poster above would be considered "Rad trad" as he has coined me hundreds of times before, We would not have been granted this MP today as it was reported today on "Inside the Vatican" that the pope did grant such not only for reconcilliations but because of the countless letters he received on this subject. It was also reported that priests have been denied the ability to perform this rite, as I have been asking my bishop for years now to grant more masses instead of only one mass in a bad neighborhood, and his reply has always been that the clergy is just to busy. I guess though they are not to busy to have their countless intereligious dialogues in our towns synagogues and joint events, but that is another story

In the Providence Journal it was reported today that there are already 20 young priests who have asked one priest who taught himself the TLM how to celebrate it!

This is a grass roots effort to get the clergy at the earliest stages of formation involved, as where the shepherd takes them the lambs will follow. Masterful stroke by B16

http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-july8-07.htm

Esau

John,

There's a difference between a Traditionalist and a Rad Trad.

As usual, you haven't paid attention to my past posts where I've already explained this time and again.

Out of respect for Jimmy and those who have tired of these futile sessions with you, I will not repeat the explanation.

Suffice it to say that my friends who have advocated the Tridentine Rite, who have remained obedient to vital elements of the Faith prominent in Pre-Vatican II Catechism, among these being that of strict assent to the Teachings of the Church as well as the commands of the Vicar of Christ and acknowledgment of his Authority as Successor of Peter; this is what distinguishes a genuine Traditionalist from a Rad Trad.

pseudomodo

John,

Of course I appreciate the old mass and the people that worshipped that way for centuries but they were not snobs - it was simply the mass and that was it.

Would I call my mother or grandmother who were catholic before the changes took place from 1962-1970 a "snob"? YES!! if they could be defined as a snob:

snob (snŏb)
n.
1. One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.

2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.

So if you (not meaning you) are a Trad because you regard Novos as second class citizens who couldn't worship thier way through a wet paper bag, then yes you (not meaning you in particular) are a snob.

For the most part the real Trads I appreciate are the ones who appreciate beauty and solemnity in the Tridentine and they are identical to the Novos who also appreciate beauty and solemnity as found in the N.O. These trads are the ones I lovingly (albeit somethime cheekily) refer to as the 'Catholics of the Strict Observance'. There is no disrespect. Thier way is simply more rigorous.

I have found some Trads rather elitist.

Esau

I have found some Trads rather elitist.

Pseudomodo:

I can certainly understand this.

The first time I attended the Indult Mass, there were those folks who were indeed snobs.

Yet, when I observed the reverence and beauty of the Traditional Latin Mass when celebrated, I could care less of the Snobs that were there. I wasn't there for them. I was there for the Lord.

When the priest who celebrated the Mass retired, I ended up attending the Novus Ordo. Although, admittedly, there were hardly any such snobs as those I found at the Traditional Roman Mass, I did find some liberals whose behaviour were just as despicable.

Andy120

Now, how about this situation:

A priest celebrates a mass once a week prior to classes at a Catholic high school. The Mass is attended by a small amount of people, usually under 5, in a small chapel in the school. Does the MP allow for the celebration of the Latin Mass in this situation even though it is not a parish and I'm not sure its technically a private Mass either?

A Simple Sinner

"Let us all pray that Pope Benedict lives to September 14 so that any lingering doubts about whether this is a "dead letter" will be squashed."

How very morbid.

Hartmeister

Here's some observations:

1) Since the Summorum Pontificum lacks a formula to determining what would trigger real consideration of a request, expect many bishops to sit on their hands until one of the bishops creates one. I'm guessing that the magic ratio will be 51-100% of the least attended local parish's Sunday Mass.

2) Expect many bishops to side step this issue by inviting Trid order communities from Christ the King and others to diffuse the situation. The hope will be that Trid lovers will be attracted to parishes that embraced their value rather than the possibility that a 1962 Mass might divide the local parish Church. If I was a bishop who was planning on consolidating some parishes, I think it would be wise to set a few aside for Trid order communities.

3) Does this mean that any priest can use the Carmelite, Cistercian, Dominican, Norbertine, Franciscan, Friars Minor Capuchin, and Servite Rites since they were Roman Rites in use at 1962?

Josh

Steve Cavanaugh:

I, too, recommend using the Anglican Breviary - it is what I used before I got my hands on a copy of the Breviarium Romanum. It is a very well-designed Breviary, and includes material from the Sarum liturgy as well. Since it is not Roman Catholic but rather Anglican, there are a few things to be aware of:

1. While it is not an officially approved form of the Breviary, there is nothing contrary to the Catholic Faith contained therein. Some pastors of the FSSP have recommended it for use by laity who desire to pray in the spirit of the traditional Breviary, but do not know Latin.

2. References to the "Chief Bishop" in some of the prayers would need to be changed to "Pope" or "Supreme Pontiff" by a Catholic.

3. The Anglican Breviary follows the calendar and rubrics in force in 1954. Thus there are some differences from the 1962 Breviary - more octaves and vigils, some feasts deleted from 1956-1962, does not contain St. Joseph the Worker or the Queenship of the BVM, etc. These are all relatively easy to overcome in order to celebrate in accordance with the 1962 rubrics, but you should be aware of that.

4. On the Immaculate Conception, where the Pope Pius IX's Bull is read, an Anglican essay describing the historical development of the idea of Our Lady's purity is substituted (though there is nothing contrary to the Catholic Faith contained in this essay - it does not call into question the definition of the Immaculate Conception). Also, the III Nocturn Gospel lections and homilies are occasionally different from the Roman Secular Breviary - why I do not know.

All in all, I can totally recommend the Anglican Breviary, especially if you are drawn to traditional language.

Josh

Hartmeister:

The motu proprio does not permit any priest whatever to use the religious orders' books in force in 1962. Only the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum is mentioned explicitly. The spirit of the motu proprio does not appear opposed to a religious order permitting the older books to be used, but that determination would be made by superiors in the Order, probably in consultation with Ecclesia Dei.

A Simple Sinner

Posted by: Hartmeister "Does this mean that any priest can use the Carmelite, Cistercian, Dominican, Norbertine, Franciscan, Friars Minor Capuchin, and Servite Rites since they were Roman Rites in use at 1962?"

Hartmeister,

No.

They were not Roman rites, they were "rites of the Latin church." The predominate rite of the Latin church is Roman, but not all latin ritual expressions can be called Roman. More accurately, they are Latin. Evem the Glagolithic Rite in Croatia even though it was, ironically, the Roman rite in Slavonic.

There ARE communities celebrating those traditional monastic rites. In Wyoming a group of Carmelites celebrate the old Carmelite rite exclusively.

John

Pseudo

I appreciate your honest answer, but remember snobs come in all shapes and sizes. What I have to admit I have found among traditionalists is a sense of protectionism, a sense of feeling not part, and chastised, which could lead to snobbery ( a word?)

Pray for both snobs on both sides as neither is good

God bless you

John

Esau

I appreciate your charitiable answer (and I think you should be charitable not only for Jimmy, but for me as a person and for yourself as well).

But please note that a traditionalist only wants what ONCE WAS and not something that was NEVER the Norm

A Liberalist wants the complete opposite

If a Traditionalist petitions the Vatican as I and many have done for years to RESTORE what once was such as the Traditional Latin Mass-and you label that "Rad"-then you are mistaken, as it was due to these petitions we have got as far as we have in 1988 and now again in 2007

God bless you

Michael

It has been said that a reasonable man accepts things as they are and goes on. But progress comes from the struggle to change the status quo and therefore all progress is due to unreasonable men.

Similarly, it is fashionable to bash the radtrads. They are, after all, obnoxious and not socially acceptable while, in all the charity we can muster, it can be said that some less radical traditionalists do not display those traits and so are okay. The irony is that without the obnoxious radtrads (they simply would not shut up or go away) none of us would be where we are today praising the Pope's MP. Reasonable people would simply have accepted the situation as it was and gone on as best they could.

So the next time the temptation to bash a radtrad comes up, perhaps we should say a small word of thanks first before we get into the condemnations. Or perhaps it is even better to contemplate that even they may be playing a role in God's plan for the Catholic Church.

Inocencio

Michael,

"

So the next time the temptation to bash a radtrad comes up, perhaps we should say a small word of thanks first before we get into the condemnations. Or perhaps it is even better to contemplate that even they may be playing a role in God's plan for the Catholic Church.
"

Would you extend that word of thanks to protestants?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

anon

About the mass in English and in Latin and priests being stretched thin:

1) We are a 'national' parish and the only one for our language group in the diocese. The mass in that language was established decades and decades ago, when the mass was in Latin but the HOMILIES were in the language of the immigrants we served then. The bishop has expressly told us that he wants the mass in that language to continue. (Not a liberal bishop. You might even be a fan of his.) But our situation is not uncommon, as my grandparents went out of their way to attend a mass in their own language group as well (a long time ago and far away from here.) It is a matter of gathering the folks with whom they could speak, of the homily and of the music as well.

2) Despite the snide suggestions about Gregorian chant - which I love - I don't think I ever had heard it live until long, long after the council. And it takes someone schooled in music to present it, teach it and enable it. And in my experience, I have not seen those people leap forward to volunteer. You have to hire them and pay them.

3) The other language group we serve is indeed Spanish. Since many, many more Catholics speak Spanish rather than English (certainly in the world and also in some dioceses of this country), maybe we should go out of our way to speak that rather than forcing people to worship (and, again, hear a homily) that they do not understand in the 'dominant language'. As far as I can tell, that 'dominant language' for Catholics is Spanish.

4) Both these masses were instituted when our parish, in its history, had a majority of the parishioners speaking those languages. So the 'trigger' in each case was the majority of parishioners, not just a few asking that their own needs be met. Our demographics have shifted again, so that neither of these groups is the majority. But it is pretty hard to tell people who have worshipped and contributed for decades, "Go away. There are new people here and we just want to talk to them!"

5) I am fine with the Novus Ordo in Latin. I took a lot of Latin. I'm comfortable with it. No issues with me. But the few times we've ventured in that direction, the push back from the folks was pretty strong. Especially among the youngest (in their 20's and 30's). My experience is that those who have seen the 1962 missal in action mostly think it is a quaint museum piece, not something that they would come to week after week.

I'm glad that those who want the 1962 missal to be their worship experience have the right to it. To just inject a note of reality in the discussion: there are still very few people looking for this experience - counted as a percentage of the whole. The vast majority would like mass in English (or Spanish or Vietnamese or Polish.)

And lastly, please try to be charitable in your discussions of the situations of others. The accusatory note in your post was quite distressing.

Michael

Would you extend that word of thanks to protestants?

Exactly which protestants have been advocates of Catholic tradition? Which ones helped to bring back the old liturgy?

John

Michael

Great post

Inoncencio posted:

"Would you extend that word of thanks to protestants?"

I am baffled by this-Are you comparing Protestants who demanded liberal reforms to that of the so called "rad trad" who only wants to worship as the church once had and was the "norm" before things were liberalized?

I see no correlation in your analogy to be charitiable

Inocencio

Michael,

Since the protestants are the reason the Council of Trent and Pope Pius V gave us the Tridentine Rite and they fit your description of "unreasonable men" do you also extend a word of thanks to them?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

pseudomodo

John,

I appreciate your reply. I would caution, however that a liberal does not want the opposite as a rule.

A liberal may want to add things they find more comfortable (whatEVER those thing may be - and therefore potentially dangerous).

A liberal may also delete things they find uncomfortable (whatEVER those thing may be - and therefore potentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater).

Yes the Trad may be protecting something that has been beautiful for many centuries but hopefully not like a person who is protecting thier beautiful little white suburban house with the beautful white picket fence and neatly trimmed lawn with matching topiary shrubs but at the same time sneering at the more liberal country house with the equally and carefully manicured English country garden.

Protectionism is fine until it evolves into an air of bigotry but hopefully not.

I do agree with you about protecting beauty in the catholic tradition...

I have a few statues of Jesus at home - one is beautifully cast and painted - the other is a plastic glow in the dark cross-eyed Christ. I think I can appreciate the better artistically executed one, but I can't see it in the dark.

The other one reminds me of the transfiguration especially after I pray the fourth luminous mystery.

God works in mysterious ways....

Michael

Innocencio,

The protestants you speak of were unreasonable and obnoxious, but they also went away to pursue the future as they dreamed it would be. I thank the Council of Trent and Pius V for the codification of Catholic teaching and the Mass of Trent, not those who would become Lutherans or Calvinists or Anglicans.

I thank radtrads for continuing to remind of us of that treasure of Catholicity when the easy path was simply to forget it. And I thank them for all the letters they have written over the years to the Curia petitioning for a redress of their grievances. I thank them for remaining Catholic although there are others who disapprove who would like to see them disallowed of that status. Did the protestant reformers you speak of continue against all hope to pursue their cause with Rome or did they leave? Are you not able to see the distinction?

matt


About the mass in English and in Latin and priests being stretched thin:

1) We are a 'national' parish and the only one for our language group in the diocese. The mass in that language was established decades and decades ago, when the mass was in Latin but the HOMILIES were in the language of the immigrants we served then. The bishop has expressly told us that he wants the mass in that language to continue. (Not a liberal bishop. You might even be a fan of his.) But our situation is not uncommon, as my grandparents went out of their way to attend a mass in their own language group as well (a long time ago and far away from here.) It is a matter of gathering the folks with whom they could speak, of the homily and of the music as well.

Oh, I guess you misunderstood, the homily would be in a vernacular not in Latin. So there is no reason why one of the masses couldn't be in Latin and people could about the homily and the of the music.

The fact of the matter is that the abandonment of Latin is the principle reason we now have divided communities like yours. Latin was always the uniting factor, so you could go to mass in any country and following the mass aided by a missal in the vernacular of your choice. Of course, if the homily was in a foreign tongue, you wouldn't receive that benefit, but in light of eternity, it's not the principle reason for assisting at mass anyways.


2) Despite the snide suggestions about Gregorian chant - which I love - I don't think I ever had heard it live until long, long after the council. And it takes someone schooled in music to present it, teach it and enable it. And in my experience, I have not seen those people leap forward to volunteer. You have to hire them and pay them.

Actually according to custom, Gregorian chant is the principle music of the mass, and has been for centuries. Pius X requested that the congregation participate primarily by means of the chant. The Church's opinion is that it is not difficult to learn, as opposed to those awful protestant Haugen&Haus ditties that are so common.


3) The other language group we serve is indeed Spanish. Since many, many more Catholics speak Spanish rather than English (certainly in the world and also in some dioceses of this country), maybe we should go out of our way to speak that rather than forcing people to worship (and, again, hear a homily) that they do not understand in the 'dominant language'. As far as I can tell, that 'dominant language' for Catholics is Spanish.

Red Herring.


4) Both these masses were instituted when our parish, in its history, had a majority of the parishioners speaking those languages. So the 'trigger' in each case was the majority of parishioners, not just a few asking that their own needs be met. Our demographics have shifted again, so that neither of these groups is the majority. But it is pretty hard to tell people who have worshipped and contributed for decades, "Go away. There are new people here and we just want to talk to them!"

I guess that would be what happened in 1970 with the Latin Mass? Again you seem to think that Latin mass attendees converse in Latin, which is really just not so, furthermore, we do not seek the TLM to meet some need of personal comfort, it is a deep spiritual need of the Church as a whole, one that we, along with the Holy Father, is important to restore.


5) I am fine with the Novus Ordo in Latin. I took a lot of Latin. I'm comfortable with it. No issues with me. But the few times we've ventured in that direction, the push back from the folks was pretty strong. Especially among the youngest (in their 20's and 30's). My experience is that those who have seen the 1962 missal in action mostly think it is a quaint museum piece, not something that they would come to week after week.

Well, according to the Holy Father, Latin is still the principle language of the Church. So take it up with his Holiness.

I'm glad that those who want the 1962 missal to be their worship experience have the right to it. To just inject a note of reality in the discussion: there are still very few people looking for this experience - counted as a percentage of the whole. The vast majority would like mass in English (or Spanish or Vietnamese or Polish.)

How would you even know?


And lastly, please try to be charitable in your discussions of the situations of others. The accusatory note in your post was quite distressing.

Ditto.

It seems that there are so many people that see mass as a "service" rather than the supernatural event that it truly is. The important thing about mass is not what you "get out" of it, but what He does for us, and what we do in response - offer the only True Worship that is worthy of Him. This is clearly related to the casual way in which mass is typically celebrated as a result of the changes which were made both authorized and unauthorized, and the lack of good catechesis in favor of this "experiential" notion that is typical.

God Bless,

Matt

Inocencio

Michael,

I thank all who have stayed and accept the authority of the pope. And I pray for those who have a contradictory notion of Tradition.

Because as Pope John Paul II said "It is impossible to remain faithful to Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ Himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church."

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John

Inocencio posted:

"Since the protestants are the reason the Council of Trent and Pope Pius V gave us the Tridentine Rite and they fit your description of "unreasonable men" do you also extend a word of thanks to them?"

Inocencio are you insinuating that the Tridentine Rite was "formulated" by the Council of Trent?

You are quite aware I am sure that the Traditional Mass was one of 4 rites spoken at that time, and all Trent did was solidify this mass and make it the norm throughout the church. Trent did many other things as well, but I am sure I would be called thread hijacking if I starting going into this.


To thank the Protestatns for the Traditional Latin Mass which grew organic and was in place before Trent and in use after is absurd

John

Pseudo

I like the way you phrased your post and I do agree that the church much like everything in life needs a little "tweeking" from time to time

But wholechanges as we have experienced lead people to question what they were, and how they were worshipping before hand and if the church was "wrong" then for holding fast to the norms and traditions-what is to stop them from being wrong now and just leads others especially our youth to lose the faith at an early age and reject the church

Like a custodian-the church must be unwavering in her teachings but she has not been and has wavered these past years

She can restore her place in the world and in peoples minds by going back to the teachings she once stood by so firm, even to the point of losing entire countries (England, Germany, etc)but she was always looked at with respect and she is back on her way thanks to B16 to reclaim that glory

Michael

Innocencio,

Excommunications are above my pay grade.

In the spirit of the week - Gaudeamus Igitur!

Inocencio

John,

Pope Pius V called it a new rite and I accept that and refer to that new rite as the Tridentine Rite.

Pope Benedict XVI has made clear that the missal of Blessed John XXIII is the extraordinary form of the current rite.

He specifically stated in his letter to the Bishops on SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM:

"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.

As for Tradition my earlier quotation of Pope John Paul II stated it best.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

Michael,

Yes, let us rejoice. Amen.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

John:

If a Traditionalist petitions the Vatican as I and many have done for years to RESTORE what once was such as the Traditional Latin Mass-and you label that "Rad"-then you are mistaken, as it was due to these petitions we have got as far as we have in 1988 and now again in 2007

You still don't get it at all!

I don't label Traditionalists "Rad Trads".

As I mentioned many times in the past, I, in fact, endorse a group who are actually Traditionalists.

Those who are the "Rad Trads" are the traitors to Catholic Tradition & Teachings who have made themselves into their own Pontiffs and have gone to the extent of usurping the powers of papal authority, declaring folks heretics, excommunicating others as if they have the authority to do so, even excommunicating the Pope himself!

Just as somebody I know here on this blog who had similarly done the same.


Jimmy,

I apologize for my comments here.

But I find it quite distressing the idea that has arisen from some Rad Trads here:

"Acknowledge the Authority of the Pope IF and ONLY IF he does what you want of him; otherwise, insist that he is a heretic, an apostate."

If anything, this is more venemous, more subversive an act than that of any liberal out there.

At the very least, liberals, deep down, know that what they do oppose Catholic tradition.

However, for some reason, Rad Trads believe that this very subjective, not to mention, very Protestant idea (i.e., subject to one's own interpretation) is actually traditional Catholic Teaching.

This can be considered more dangerous than the work of any liberal out there since Rad Trads submit to a very Protestant notion, disguising it as traditional Catholic teaching, spreading the errors of this Protestantism into the Church in this surreptitious manner.

At the very least, the things that liberals do are so egregiously erroneous, so against Catholic tradition that many can see that and, indeed, many liberals themselves do admit to that.

In short, it must be reiterated that the Authority of the Vicar of Christ exists not because somebody says so but because Christ Himself says so!

For Rad Trads to declare the Authority of the Vicar of Christ null and void is to declare likewise that the Authority of Christ is Null and Void!

materfamilias

2) Despite the snide suggestions about Gregorian chant - which I love - I don't think I ever had heard it live until long, long after the council. And it takes someone schooled in music to present it, teach it and enable it. And in my experience, I have not seen those people leap forward to volunteer. You have to hire them and pay them.

Actually according to custom, Gregorian chant is the principle music of the mass, and has been for centuries. Pius X requested that the congregation participate primarily by means of the chant. The Church's opinion is that it is not difficult to learn, as opposed to those awful protestant Haugen&Haus ditties that are so common.

With all due respect

1. The chants for the Mass Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, etc) are not too terrifically difficult for the average singer. However they are in a radically different style from what most people are accustomed to and required quite a bit of effort and patient teaching to master.

2. The chants for the Mass propers (Introit, Graduale, etc.) can be quite difficult and require professional level direction with skilled singers. It is not at all uplifting to hear badly performed music no matter what kind of Mass you are attending.

3. Musicians are professionals. When I sing in a choir I volunteer; when I am cantor or director I expect to be paid. The church pays its secretaries and its plumbers, it should also pay its organists and choir directors. To my mind its a moral imperative. If a given professional musician chooses to return the salary or honorarium back to the church, then he or she is making a laudible sacrifice. To expect musicians to work for nothing is wrong.

I have a friend who was the full-time music director of a Catholic parish, but quit to work in a Protestant church. The pastor asked him why and he responded "You are not pro-life enough for me." The pastor was astonished until my friend added, "you don't pay me enough to support my family."

John

Esau posted:

"Jimmy,

I apologize for my comments here.

But I find it quite distressing the idea that has arisen from some Rad Trads here"

When Mr Akin was asked to please have Esau tone the rheteric down on another thread Just YESTERDAY, Mr Akin replied to Esau DIRECTLY:

"Also, calling someone a "Rad Trad/Plagiarist" is not helpful. From what I've seen, John has been making a good faith effort to comply with the rules.

Please keep the discussion polite."


Jimmy, Once again Esau cant help himself from calling other posters names such as Rad Trad and his hatred is so deep that he cant help but reveal such with his uncharitable explosions towards all Traditionalists under the guise of his supposed protection of the Vicar of Christ, who does not need Esau to protect him as he has the love and prayers of all


Please put a stop to him as his rants get very tiresome and will only lead to a reversion of what was taking place before

God bless

Esau

Matt:

It seems that there are so many people that see mass as a "service" rather than the supernatural event that it truly is. The important thing about mass is not what you "get out" of it, but what He does for us, and what we do in response - offer the only True Worship that is worthy of Him.

Very well said!!!

I totally agree with what you've stated here!!!

I believe this is the very reason why belief in The Real Presence has dwindled over the years, where the Eucharist has become nothing more than a Symbol, unfortunately.

Also, respect and reverence for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been awfully neglected and, at worst, absent in some of the Masses celebrated in these modern times to the point where Mass has become nothing more than a social gathering to some folks due to how there have been rogue priests out there who have taken extreme liberties with the Novus Ordo, degrading the Mass into nothing more than a "service" rather than what it should be: A Great Act of Worship of the Church, The Holy Sacrifice Instituted by Our Lord Himself!

Esau

John:

with his uncharitable explosions towards all Traditionalists

Towards all Traditionalists???
Again, you've failed to comprehend my comments.

under the guise of his supposed protection of the Vicar of Christ, who does not need Esau to protect him as he has the love and prayers of all

He only got your love and prayers just because of the Motu.

Prior to the Motu, you only had such hatred of Pope Benedict XVI.

What I fear, and the reason why I make this an issue (which I hope Jimmy will understand), is that if Pope Benedict XVI did not do what he did, if another Pope were to succeed B16 who was more like Pope John Paul II, in no time at all would Rad Trads like you suddenly cover the Seat of Peter with scurrilous insults and accusations of apostasy!

This is why I find it quite disconcerting:

"Acknowledge the Authority of the Pope IF and ONLY IF he does what you want of him; otherwise, insist that he is a heretic, an apostate."

John

Esau posted once again in another blazing name calling attack:

"What I fear, and the reason why I make this an issue (which I hope Jimmy will understand), is that if Pope Benedict XVI did not do what he did, if another Pope were to succeed B16 who was more like Pope John Paul II, in no time at all would Rad Trads like you suddenly cover the Seat of Peter with scurrilous insults and accusations of apostasy!"

I will not respond, but the name calling is so uncharitable and makes conversing so difficult, that I hope Mr Akin puts a stop to you once and for all

Esau

materfamilias:

Musicians are professionals. When I sing in a choir I volunteer; when I am cantor or director I expect to be paid. The church pays its secretaries and its plumbers, it should also pay its organists and choir directors. To my mind its a moral imperative. If a given professional musician chooses to return the salary or honorarium back to the church, then he or she is making a laudible sacrifice. To expect musicians to work for nothing is wrong.


This is simply wrong on so many levels.

I know professional musicians who donate their time and effort, their very singing to their local Parish without compensation at all.

You mean to tell me that if Jesus Himself was physically present, you would demand of him wages for having sang praises for Him in His Church?

Even in Protestant churches, there are professional singers would donate their time and talent to their church.

In fact, don't the Gospels teach us as much?

byrdele

I go to a partial Tridentine Mass (half Latin, half English, style of Novus Ordo with the priest facing the front) which the bishop has allowed in our diocese in the UK. I love it - the contemplative nature and although there was a time I enjoyed singing hymns and all that, I now as I get older want something more contemplative so I can concentrate on what is going on - the Mystery of the Mass. There is room for both rites, as you said.

I wonder whether new priests in seminaries will be trained in the Mass. I assume they are trained in Latin, so it would not be much to train them to say the Mass. I know there are not many being ordained in Europe - time to get the seminarians from the 3rd world where they can't build enough seminaries to hold them and bring them up here. It would be refreshing to have their perspective in the pulpit, solve the shortage of priests and if these young men were trained in the Tridentine would give us a chance to have more said according to our spiritual needs.

God bless.

byrdele

Esau

I assume they are trained in Latin, so it would not be much to train them to say the Mass.

Seminaries I know of do not even have Latin as part of their curriculum and even if it is, it is not at all a mandatory course.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31