Instruction Universae Ecclesiae to be released on Friday

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is my understanding too. All that is required is to pronounce the words (not hard as there are very few silent letters in Latin, even easier when sung) and to understand the gist of the prayers. Not necessary to know the precise meaning and grammatical breakdown of each Latin word recited. Shouldn’t be that self-conscious about it either as some of the prayers are to be said in a low-tone.

And even if you get it wrong you do not have to worry about the majority of people knowing you messed it up.

 

[halleone]

And even if you get it wrong you do not have to worry about the majority of people knowing you messed it up.

Love it!!

 

[malphono]

And even if you get it wrong you do not have to worry about the majority of people knowing you messed it up.

True. But I’m not a Latin scholar, and I’d notice. Plus, I’d likely be in the sacristy after Mass to make friendly mention of the mess-up.

 

[TMC]

There has already been a fair bit of hinting about what this document will say, and its seems like it will be a big yawn. I am sure there will be a few parishes where the parishoners will roll it up and club their priest over the head with it until they get an EF, but I don’t think it will really do much (if anything) to change Church policy. I’m not sure it needs to. Seems like the "shortage’ of EF masses is mostly a localized concern in dioceses that lack the resources to provide them, with a few that may lack the will to provide them. A new piece of paper from Rome can’t change the former, and will likely do little to change the latter.

 

[Theophorus]

I am not against this happening. I do prefer the Ordinary Form but would not be against learning the EF but…

What classes do you suggest we drop from our program to facilitate the additional class time in learning Latin (for those seminaries that do not require Latin (do not argue that they should do so as I know that but many, if not most, do not) as well as the classes to teach the EF rites?

My understanding was that Latin is currently a requirement not should but is. whether they teach it or not is their problem

 

[ProVobis]

And even if you get it wrong you do not have to worry about the majority of people knowing you messed it up.

You’ll do fine. I’d be much more worried if I had to say the Vietnamese OF facing everyone and using a microphone.

 

[ProVobis]

True. But I’m not a Latin scholar, and I’d notice. Plus, I’d likely be in the sacristy after Mass to make friendly mention of the mess-up.

If I had to donate a dime for everytime I messed up as a server, I’d really be poor.

 

[Brendan]

Can’t see that happening because ultimately the Bishops have the authority over any and all public Liturgies in his diocese. Unless the Pope would change Canon Law. Wasn’t that one of the clarifications of SP that it was not meant to usurp the authority of Bishops with regards to Liturgy in their territory?

The local Bishop has the right to regulate the liturgy in his diocese. That means to insure that the liturgy is celebrated within the regulations set by the Church.

A bishop, for example, has no right to prevent the Mass being said publically in the Ordinary Form in Latin. Or ad orientum, or for the faithful to kneel for Communion.

All of these things are permitted under the regula of the Church and not within the authority of the bishop to restrict.

The bishop may not act against the rights of the faithful. The Pope would mearly need to note that the faithful have a right to hear the Mass in the Extraoridinary Form.

For the bishop to regulate the liturgy, he must therefore provide for such a liturgy.

Note the qualifer in Canon Law

838 §4 - “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound

If the Holy See declares norms on the celebration of the EF, then, by defintion, Canon Law itself would restrict the local bishop from acting contrary to these norms.

 

[Brendan]

How could that be dropped and replaced with the EF? Then you still need to drop something else for the required Latin.

The Latin has been required for some years now. The Vatican has issued norms on the development of seminarians. All that remains is for the few seminaries who have not finshed complying with the norms to do so.

The seminary in Detroit complied with the norms several years ago, and includes instruction Sacramentum Caritas

The Latin language

1. None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (184)

That was almost 4 years ago. The seminaries that have not completed this already should be well underway by now. If they are not… well they need to be.

I know three seminarians from Sacred Heart, who, after their ordination, spend a month with the Order of St. John Cantius in Chicago learning the EF. That is also where my pastor went to learn the EF when S.P. was issued. So it clearly is possible.

Finally, I spend July last year in a remote diocese in Tanzania (Kahama) . I had the privlidge of spending that month staying in the residence of Bishop Minde, the local Ordinary. He had a strong program of Latin in his seminary already. If such a diocese can manage, so can all the others.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The bishop may not act against the rights of the faithful. The Pope would mearly need to note that the faithful have a right to hear the Mass in the Extraoridinary Form.

I do not think this instruction will go this far as the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum gives the priests the right to celebrate the EF in private and in public if there is a “stable group” that requests it.

It does not force any priest to celebrate the EF.

If the laity were granted the right to the EF then priests could be forced to celebrate it which would go against their rights which, just as the laity, the bishop may not act against their rights either.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Latin has been required for some years now. The Vatican has issued norms on the development of seminarians. All that remains is for the few seminaries who have not finshed complying with the norms to do so.

The seminary in Detroit complied with the norms several years ago, and includes instruction Sacramentum Caritas

That was almost 4 years ago. The seminaries that have not completed this already should be well underway by now. If they are not… well they need to be.

I know three seminarians from Sacred Heart, who, after their ordination, spend a month with the Order of St. John Cantius in Chicago learning the EF. That is also where my pastor went to learn the EF when S.P. was issued. So it clearly is possible.

Finally, I spend July last year in a remote diocese in Tanzania (Kahama) . I had the privlidge of spending that month staying in the residence of Bishop Minde, the local Ordinary. He had a strong program of Latin in his seminary already. If such a diocese can manage, so can all the others.

Not saying that it can’t be done, just what much be sacrificed to do it.

Also, I recall seeing the report from the seminary visitation and I do not recall if the lack of Latin was listed.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

The EF was taught just as the OF is taught now in the seminary. The OF is the norm, it is as its title says, the Ordinary Form in the Latin Church.

How could that be dropped and replaced with the EF? Then you still need to drop something else for the required Latin.

The majority of Masses celebrated in the Church is the OF, to all the suddenly turn out priests who have not been trained in the Ordinary Form (the norm) in the Church would be (sorry for the language) stupid and irresponsible.

I guess we could tack on another semester and make the Masters of Divinity for ordination 9 semesters (4 and a half years) instead of 8 semesters (4 years).

Granted if they do mandate such a change I will most likely be grandfathered in under the current guidelines so it would not affect me in any way.

I was not serious about dropping the N.O. instruction entirely. While I’m a Traditionalist and would prefer that the TLM is available everywhere and would be supportive of phasing out the N.O., I certainly would never suggest a sudden switch without and sort of preparation for it. Major changes like this couldn’t be done instantly.

 

[ProVobis]

The EF was taught just as the OF is taught now in the seminary. The OF is the norm, it is as its title says, the Ordinary Form in the Latin Church.

How could that be dropped and replaced with the EF? Then you still need to drop something else for the required Latin.

The majority of Masses celebrated in the Church is the OF, to all the suddenly turn out priests who have not been trained in the Ordinary Form (the norm) in the Church would be (sorry for the language) stupid and irresponsible.

But the OF is technically the Latin Mass as well. It is my understanding that Veterum Sapientia, Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, 1983 Canon Law, and now the Bishop’s Conference have mandated Latin in the Mass and/or seminaries. I don’t see how grandfathering comes into play.

You could, however, make the argument that up to now, the EF training has been made optional. But that shouldn’t effect the prior Latin requirement.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But the OF is technically the Latin Mass as well. It is my understanding that Veterum Sapientia, Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, 1983 Canon Law, and now the Bishop’s Conference have mandated Latin in the Mass and/or seminaries. I don’t see how grandfathering comes into play.

You could, however, make the argument that up to now, the EF training has been made optional. But that shouldn’t effect the prior Latin requirement.

Grandfathering comes in due to the fact that all M.Div. programs are accredited programs.

The accrediting bodies will not allow a change to a program to be retroactive. All those who are already enrolled into a program can not be made to meet the new requirements added after they have taken the first classes for the program under a different set of rules.

Just as when the Program for Priestly Formation, 5th edition, came out with its increase in philosophy and theology requirements. As I had started my bachelors degree in the spring semester and the PPF came out the following Fall I was (among many) who were grandfathered and not required to meet the new PPF requirements.

If the USCCB did not require an accredited M.Div. for ordination then this would not be an issue.

Personally I am considering using some of my very few electives for Latin but I must clear this with my academic advisor and I still have to meet the required electives in Carmelite studies so I am unsure I will be able to do this. I am also considering a certificate in Carmelite Studies or in Spiritual Direction which will also use up my few electives. I may consider some summer courses in Latin if I can find them offered during the summer.

 

[Geremia]

Unfortunately, the speculation a few weeks ago, if I remember correctly, was suggesting that the instruction will only recommend that seminaries provide training in the E.F. - at this stage, however, I think we need more than mere recommendations.

I think it definitely will discuss the minor orders, issue, though, and it will at least make it easier for seminarians who so desire to learn about the EF. I know a handful of young priests and seminarians, many of whom are Dominicans (i.e., not an EF-only group like FSSP), very interested in learning the usus antiquior.

I know of one seminary which received a letter a few years ago from the Holy See about providing such training, and the letter was blatantly ignored

I haven’t heard of this. Was it because a certain region had no available priests to do the EF that the Vatican told that seminary to train its priests to do EF Masses?

• so I hope the Holy Father will take a more hard-line approach on this matter: the letter with the nicey-nice approach simply won’t get further than the rubbish bin in some seminaries!

If he pushes too hard, he could instigate schism, but that would just be the inevitable anyways, not his fault.

 

[NPC]

I haven’t heard of this. Was it because a certain region had no available priests to do the EF that the Vatican told that seminary to train its priests to do EF Masses?

I didn’t want to name the seminary, as it’s now the only seminary in Ireland, so very easily identifiable - but it hasn’t been making favourable headlines recently: I hope Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s recent visitation (the results of which are now in the hands of the Holy Father) will yield positive results. Re. a letter about teaching the E.F. - I heard this initially from a priest friend of mine (though he had been ordained about six or seven years when this happened). However, what he told me was confirmed by no less than two men, now priests, who were seminarians at the time.

If he pushes too hard, he could instigate schism, but that would just be the inevitable anyways, not his fault.

Yes, of course, the Holy Father is treading a very difficult and delicate line. Unfortunately, though, we’ve seen what has happened when bishops and priests were told that the use of the Latin language should be maintained, or that Gregorian chant should be given pride of place - many saw this as a means of getting rid of Latin and Gregorian chant! But we are dealing with something much more serious than simply Latin and Gregorian chant - the wider issue is, of course, the spiritual welfare of the faithful. It’s not about saying that the E.F. is better than the O.F. or that Latin is always better than English - rather it’s about realising that if the E.F. benefits certain groups of the faithful spiritually, so clergy and laity alike should eagerly obey the wishes of the Holy Father. Obedience will likely be an issue for some (with or without Universae Ecclesiae) - but, as you say, if this is inevitable, it won’t be the fault of Pope Benedict.

 

[Brendan]

Not saying that it can’t be done, just what much be sacrificed to do it.

The Vatican (and the Pope himself) would disagree with you; they have already mandated that the study of Latin sufficent to say the Mass in the Ordinary Form be studied.

The study of Latin has figured promently in the formation of priests in the Western Church for centuries. Many, many thousands of holy priests were trained in the language as well as their other studies (philiosopy and theology).

Are you honestly trying to claim that it cannot be reintroduced without significant loss?

 

[malphono]

Grandfathering comes in due to the fact that all M.Div. programs are accredited programs.

The accrediting bodies will not allow a change to a program to be retroactive. All those who are already enrolled into a program can not be made to meet the new requirements added after they have taken the first classes for the program under a different set of rules.

Just as when the Program for Priestly Formation, 5th edition, came out with its increase in philosophy and theology requirements. As I had started my bachelors degree in the spring semester and the PPF came out the following Fall I was (among many) who were grandfathered and not required to meet the new PPF requirements.

If the USCCB did not require an accredited M.Div. for ordination then this would not be an issue.

Personally I am considering using some of my very few electives for Latin but I must clear this with my academic advisor and I still have to meet the required electives in Carmelite studies so I am unsure I will be able to do this. I am also considering a certificate in Carmelite Studies or in Spiritual Direction which will also use up my few electives. I may consider some summer courses in Latin if I can find them offered during the summer.

I understand about the “grandfathering” and the accrediting bodies, etc, but that really applies to academic requirements. The issue of Latin is a bit different, since it’s included in Canon Law, which does not mandate a specific course requirement:

Can. 249 The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well…

As such, it could be included in the curriculum for an academic degree, but it doesn’t have to be. Nonetheless, the requirement (as loose and undefined as it may be) is there. But, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t mean that one has to become a scholar in the language. In a rather real way, the Latin requirement is kind of a parallel to the “internal requirements” of religious Orders and Congregations, as well as those that may be mandated in other cases.

For example, we can look at Eastern and Oriental candidates for ordination. In most cases in the US, they attend the same academic institutions as do the Latins, and have the same academic requirements. But, of course, there are certain “internal requirements” that must be met (e.g. Church history, liturgy, other languages, etc), and instruction for those things is provided “in-house” so-to-speak.

In the past, at least, (I don’t know what goes on currently), it was quite the same for religious candidates. Take the WTC or the Consortium for example. The member Orders & Congregations all had their own “internal requirements” which were in addition to an academic degree and its requisite credits.

Anyway, just another unsolicited (not to mention somewhat windy) :twocents: from yours truly.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Are you honestly trying to claim that it cannot be reintroduced without significant loss?

There would be a loss from the current programs as they must drop classes to add classes.

That is the point I am trying to make.

To be honest there are classes that I could see dropped with no problem but those who created these programs would most likely disagree with me on that.

I can see we are getting no where with this topic and it really has nothing to do with the tread topic so I am going to stop replying along these lines.

 

[bkovacs]

Your right, as a religious we do fall under a different set of rules, but it would still required added time to the secular seminary for those who attend there.

Rome and the USCCB are also very strange in having the same mandated rules for all seminaries and theologates (at least at this time). They seem to wish to treat all studying for the priesthood in the same way. After all it is usually the bishops at the USCCB that write the guidelines and then for some unknown reason the conference of Major Superiors of Men seem to sign off on it.

It is to the bishops advantage to have the same guidelines for all priests as it guarantees that all priests are formed (at least in their schooling) as parish priests.

Correct my stupidity but I thought you were a Byzantine Catholic?. How does this concern Byzantine Catholic brothers and priests?. Don’t you just need to learn the Divine Liturgies and Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts.