Archbishop Nichols response to Universae Ecclesiae

[At_Trent]

Yes, we should.

Difference is one is the Ordinary Form and therefore it is the norm and can not be refused, the other is Extraordinary which means it is not the norm and falls under personal preference.

In none of the documents does it state that a priest must celebrate the EF or that he can be forced to do so.

IMHO out of obedience and pastoral concerns I think any priest who is approached should consider doing so though.

True, and wisely so, IMHO. One of the last things I care to deal with is a priest offering the Usus Antiquior because he is “required” (or “forced”) to do so. As I said in another thread, I’d prefer a priest who offers it willingly and with love, rather than one who does so grudgingly and with animus.

Only if he is truly properly disposed. Else we get back to the idea of him doing so because it’s “required” and we all know how well most people deal with things that are “required” for one or another reason.

All good on the point of a priest not being forced to pray a form he does not want to pray. I share the same opinion.

But as far as the OF priest having more wiggle room than a EF priest…

Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm

Now, the two forms are equal in validity and honor according to the SP. One is described as ordinary. Makes sense, it’s the most common. These labels, EF and OF are descriptive. To say otherwise, arguing because one is described extraordianary, seems to me to be a rejection of Article 1.

Doesn’t the UE seem to convey the same argument I’m presenting ?

Why does the OF priest’s preferences outweigh the EF priest’s because of a descriptive term ?

 

[At_Trent]

Can you back up your assertion that out of 20,000 US parishes, there are only “400” whose priests are “in full communion with Rome?”

Even if it were shown to be an accurate assessment, it would mean nothing unless a long period of time had passed without the numbers changing much. Seeing as though the EF has been freed of indult for such a short period of time, and seeing as though the majority of bishops have not embraced the SP, it is a useless statistic.

The question should be, are there steadily rising requests for the EF ? Are more priests wanting to pray it as time passes ? There is an indication the answers to those questions is yes.

 

[ProVobis]

These labels, EF and OF are descriptive. To say otherwise, arguing because one is described extraordianary, seems to me to be a rejection of Article 1.

Maybe it’s called EXTRAordinaria is because it takes EXTRA effort to learn (and get to)?

Notice is not SUPERordinaria or SUBordinaria.

 

[At_Trent]

Maybe it’s called EXTRAordinaria is because it takes EXTRA effort to learn (and get to)?

Notice is not SUPERordinaria or SUBordinaria.

Indeed

 

[malphono]

Why does the OF priest’s preferences outweigh the EF priest’s because of a descriptive term ?

It doesn’t. Maybe I missed it earlier, but reading this, it seems you’re asking about a “Novus Ordo priest” refusing to offer the Usus Antiquor, vs an “EF priest” refusing to say the Novus Ordo.

For better or worse, the fact is that the Novus Ordo is the “rule” and the Usus Antiquior, albeit that it’s “equal in dignity” and thus legitimate, is the exception. Thus, a priest “born and bred” in the Novus Ordo whith no interest in, or desire for, the Usus Antiquior, could (and as I said earlier, probably should) refuse to offer it. But (again, for better or worse) it doesn’t work in reverse. I could well be mistaken, but I think it’s one of the points that the FSSP had to swallow: while they may not like it, if demanded of them by competent authority, I think they would have no choice but to do the Novus Ordo. Who ever said that the law is fair?

 

[At_Trent]

It doesn’t. Maybe I missed it earlier, but reading this, it seems you’re asking about a “Novus Ordo priest” refusing to offer the Usus Antiquor, vs an “EF priest” refusing to say the Novus Ordo.

For better or worse, the fact is that the Novus Ordo is the “rule” and the Usus Antiquior, albeit that it’s “equal in dignity” and thus legitimate, is the exception. Thus, a priest “born and bred” in the Novus Ordo whith no interest in, or desire for, the Usus Antiquior, could (and as I said earlier, probably should) refuse to offer it. But (again, for better or worse) it doesn’t work in reverse. I could well be mistaken, but I think it’s one of the points that the FSSP had to swallow: while they may not like it, if demanded of them by competent authority, I think they would have no choice but to do the Novus Ordo. Who ever said that the law is fair?

Well, right. How it is is how it is. Hard to argue it’s not a double standard though.

 

[PJM]

=marthaferretti;7869036]wdtprs.com/blog/2011/05/archbp-nichols-westminster-on-universae-ecclesiae-and-seminarians/

***It would seem that their are those who still have not figured out the SIGNIFICANT ROLE in the Exodus of Once catholics souls from the church BECAUSE of the Novus Ordo Mass and it’s plenitude of change and refocus of worship; once ONLY God Centered; to at best a 50-50 billing the laity versus their God.

I’m NOT one that favors mandatin the return of the Latin Mass but STRONGLY favor making it a REAL OPTION for the laity to Choose; not our bishops and priest.

God Bless,
Pat***

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

***It would seem that their are those who still have not figured out the SIGNIFICANT ROLE in the Exodus of Once catholics souls from the church BECAUSE of the Novus Ordo Mass and it’s plenitude of change and refocus of worship; once ONLY God Centered; to at best a 50-50 billing the laity versus their God.

I’m NOT one that favors mandatin the return of the Latin Mass but STRONGLY favor making it a REAL OPTION for the laity to Choose; not our bishops and priest.

God Bless,
Pat***

Classic use of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logic fallacy.

 

[TrueLight]

This evening, I went to a Solemn Mass for Artists and the church was packed. Everything was so beautiful. I wish it could be packed like that every Sunday. I’m hoping some visitors will come to the 9 AM regular Sunday TLM because of the beautiful mass they attended today.

I must admit I am a little discouraged at the number of people I see in the EF versus the OF masses.

Maybe this new document will make people more aware of the TLMs. Maybe not.

 

[halleone]

Classic use of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logic fallacy.

Umm, Br. David, could you please interpret, in English?
Now isn’t that an ironic thing to ask, since we seem to be discussing Latin vs English…

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Because it’s not available. We were driving three hours to occasionally attend the EF (not a fun idea with a two year old and an infant. Now that parish has a new priest and no Latin Mass. A lot of young families these days are leaning towards the traditional. Maybe they just don’t like the flagrant abuses that are more common in the OF (last night our priest had us repeat an entire part of the Mass because it wasn’t said with enough gusto, said a second homily after the consecration and ad-libbed a large part of the consecration liturgy… and we’re driving an hour to get to this parish because it’s “more traditional” than the one in our county where the words to the Our Father have been changed… Sorry for the little rant… it’s just getting to me…). So yes, I believe there are people who would go, if it was more widely available…

Was just briefly looking through this thread and came across this post and have to say that you have every right to rant, THIS would drive me crazy. Since when is the Mass about this priest? Oh my, how sad a state we find ourselves when not only do the people not understand what Mass is about, but priests seem to be missing that as well. And we wonder (sometimes) how the people got the way that they did.

This floors me, not surprises me, but floors me. I would have to have gotten up and walked out. My wife and I have 5 children and we occasionally drive over an hour to go to the EF mass and are very encouraged to see many other (younger) couples at this Mass and it pains us that many others do not want to take the time to “understand” the Mass so as to ignore this jewel of the Church.

Wow, “wasn’t said with enough gusto!” That is going to stick with me for a while…

 

[Warrenton]

I hate to say you in this way, but one of the reasons are the extreme traditionalist, those who deny the authority of the Council, also the strict requirement for the jurisdiction from the diocese.

No, because they were against it from the start.

 

[PJM]

=Tarpeian Rock;7872728]Can you back up your assertion that out of 20,000 US parishes, there are only “400” whose priests are “in full communion with Rome?”

Friend WWJD

Their is no benefit to such silliness.

God Bless you!

 

[laszlo]

Can you back up your assertion that out of 20,000 US parishes, there are only “400” whose priests are “in full communion with Rome?”

Sorry, I left out the word TLM. The rest of the priests with full communion with Rome, celebrate the new form.

web2.airmail.net/carlsch/MaterDei/churches.htm

By the law everyone is in full communion with Rome, unless he is censured either automatically (like the SSPX priests through their unlicensed ordination) or by decree.

Here is the list of those Masses wich are not in communion with Room (matked with bright happy face) also the SSPX and some diocesan Masses (proving the disunity of some traditionalist among themselves marked with dark mark)

traditio.com/tradlib/masslat.pdf

 

[pnewton]

Maybe it’s called EXTRAordinaria is because it takes EXTRA effort to learn (and get to)?

Notice is not SUPERordinaria or SUBordinaria.

Nice. The AB is correct, of course. I still see a great deal of good in this latest letter. It gives us a clear understanding of the mind of the Pope. I still am optimistic that most priests and bishops actually care what the Holy Father wants, not just what he orders.

 

[pnewton]

Umm, Br. David, could you please interpret, in English?
Now isn’t that an ironic thing to ask, since we seem to be discussing Latin vs English…

The fallacy is to assume that people leave the Catholic Church (which is statistically debatable) because of the change of the Rite simply because they occur in close proximity to each other, as opposed to the sexual revolution, the War in Vietnam, the advent of the PC and the internet or the impeachment of Nixon.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Umm, Br. David, could you please interpret, in English?
Now isn’t that an ironic thing to ask, since we seem to be discussing Latin vs English…

The fallacy is to assume that people leave the Catholic Church (which is statistically debatable) because of the change of the Rite simply because they occur in close proximity to each other, as opposed to the sexual revolution, the War in Vietnam, the advent of the PC and the internet or the impeachment of Nixon.

pnewton,
Thank you for this reply.

I was being kind of obstinate in refusing to answer this for the reason pointed out by halleone.

We are discussing Latin vs English so my use of a little Latin should not have been an issue.

But I do understand the issue was most likely more the logical fallacy part.

Thanks for a succint reply.

Literal translation;

post hoc ergo propter hoc ====> after this, therefore because of this

 

[cothrige]

Difference is one is the Ordinary Form and therefore it is the norm and can not be refused, the other is Extraordinary which means it is not the norm and falls under personal preference.

I only hope that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass may be as much “not the norm” and subject to “personal preference” as are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. If so it will outnumber the Ordinary Form by twenty to one and every priest will quiver in fear at the thought of not using it, whether it is necessary or not.

 

[ProVobis]

Although the OF in the priest’s vernacular should be relatively easy to learn, it still requires some time to perfect it and/or learn all the current GIRM rules surrounding it. I know when the new Mass came out in 1969-70, priests were given something like three weeks to learn it. Many of them didn’t and dropped out for whatever reason. I know this because I once cubed with an ex-priest who was among them.

 

[halleone]

The fallacy is to assume that people leave the Catholic Church (which is statistically debatable) because of the change of the Rite simply because they occur in close proximity to each other, as opposed to the sexual revolution, the War in Vietnam, the advent of the PC and the internet or the impeachment of Nixon.

“post hoc ergo propter hoc ====> after this, therefore because of this”

---

Thank you for interpreting this for me, and in a pleasant way. I did not mean to offend anyone.