Transitioning to Tridentine Rite

[floresco]

I am simply presenting the documents of the church, which are to be interpreted solely by those who hold Divine Authority. Our place is to obey, not to sit here with gavel in hand and expect others to buy into your personal misinterpretation.

Cardinal Estevez wrote a response about how GIRM 299 should be interpretted. You do not seem to have understood him. This is what he said:

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in no. 299 of the Instituto Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which, during the Eucharistic liturgy, the position of the priest versus absidem [facing towards the apse] is to be excluded.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:

Negative, and in accordance with the following explanation.

(In case it is not clear, versus absidem corresponds to ad orientem) The explanation says what the various parts of the confusing section mean and summarizes that it affirms the value of VP without excluding AO. There is nothing about preferring VP. Cardinal Estevez refers to it as “legitimate and often advisable,” but emphasizes that the spiritual orientation is what really matters.

I thought you gave up arguing for lent?

I gave up arguing on a specific forum, not in general. I thought that you were giving up CAF for Lent.

The NORM of celebration in the OF is VP…

• whether or not you like it,
• whether or not the latin was misinterpreted several years ago,
• whether or not you believe I am mistaken in my understanding
• whether or not the bishops are reading the documents incorrectly

If the bishops “happen” to be wrong in THEIR understanding of using the preferred form VP, then it is illogical to expect that I will not believe likewise. What gives you a more certain theological expertise in YOUR interpretation? When you have consulted the majority of bishops as to whether or not VP is the norm, let me know - maybe then I’ll listen.

If you are claiming that it is more usual for the OF to be celebrated VP, then I agree. If you are claiming that more bishops prefer for it to be VP, that is possible, although I would want to see more evidence. But neither of these things is equivalent to the Church teaching that VP is to be preferred. That would require the existence of an authoritative document which explicitly states that VP is to be preferred. As far as I can tell, no such document exists and you have not produced one.

Until the church revises her position on this or until the local Ordinary directs his clergy to celebrate A.O., it is fruitless for you to sit in judgment of what I may or may not believe. It is completely tacky and uncharitable. The official Church documents I presented speak for themselves, not I, not Fr. Z, not Wikipedia. The only lawful interpreter, as I said, is the Church herself, who obviously disagrees with you.

The Church does not have the position you imagine and you have obviously not understood the documents you presented.

 

[TimothyH]

The problem I have Tim is some think the EF is the only Mass which should have Latin in it and that the OF should be regarded as the Venacular Mass; which as shown above is not what the Popes or the Council called for.

I misunderstood the point of your post, taking the first quote you made from Vatican II re. Latin be preserved as your postion, as if it were somehow in the process of being abolished.

Apologies… didn’t mean to cause anxiety.

-Pax-

-Tim-

 

[floresco]

Thank you, My point exactly. I have stated it clearly, that BOTH are allowed, as per Cardinal Estevez’s clarification. However, after 40-plus years, the bishops have not changed their preference. Why are we nitpicking this to death, particularly when Floresco is an avid trad who would love to see this changed, even though she does not attend the OF.

You are moving the goal posts. The bishops having a preference is not the same as the Church teaching that it must be preferred. The latter is what you claimed.

I have not stated my preference, since it is not relevant, but I do, on occasion, attend the OF.

 

[ProVobis]

You were there, PV?

No, but the Church I served in back in the 50’s had one of those “high” altars which were built away from the wall (for non-liturgical matters.) And I’m sure many churches, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. were constructed that way. But the “problem” was that the priest couldn’t incense completely around many of them and be seen so it did make sense that new altars be constructed such that the priest could incense the altar and face the people while praying. After all, there were prayers said while the priest was incensing. Check the old missal.

At least that was the way I interpreted #91 knowing nothing else and not being there at V2. Going from a versum populum only at sermon to versum populum for the entire Mass would have been a radical change.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I misunderstood the point of your post, taking the first quote you made from Vatican II re. Latin be preserved as your postion, as if it were somehow in the process of being abolished.

Apologies… didn’t mean to cause anxiety.

-Pax-

-Tim-

It’s no problem, Tim.

 

[floresco]

I need to point out that Floresco is an avid latin scholar, and on her other website, she frequently corrects others with regard to latin usage and grammar. Yet she is strangely silent about the latin used in I.O. #91, 1964, which was approved by Paul VI, inserted in AAS archives, and requoted in two editions of the GIRM #299. To clarify, I could consult a latin scholar of my own, but it is beyond the scope of this little thread, and not a mania of mine to prove I’m right.

Since Fr. Z’s expertise in Latin is both greater and better known than my own, I cited his views rather than giving my own. There is nothing nefarious about this.

As it was said in Cardinal E’s response, for those who find the practice objectionable,

There is nothing more to say. Either one obeys, or one argues. You choose.

P/S … I am placing Floresco on ignore, for this discussion is very uncharitable.

I have tried to correct your misunderstanding of Church teaching as politely and charitably as I can. You, however, have attributed bad motives to me and persisted in portraying me as disobedient. This is especially unreasonable, since you are familiar with my writing on another forum where I am often attacked for taking a position of obedience to the Magisterium and loyalty to the Pope. You must know that I value obedience very highly and have been able to realize that your false accusations of disobedience have been hurtful. This was indeed uncharitable.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

I am simply presenting the documents of the church, which are to be interpreted solely by those who hold Divine Authority. Our place is to obey, not to sit here with gavel in hand and expect others to buy into your personal misinterpretation. I thought you gave up arguing for lent?

The NORM of celebration in the OF is VP…

• whether or not you like it,
• whether or not the latin was misinterpreted several years ago,
• whether or not you believe I am mistaken in my understanding
• whether or not the bishops are reading the documents incorrectly

If the bishops “happen” to be wrong in THEIR understanding of using the preferred form VP, then it is illogical to expect that I will not believe likewise. What gives you a more certain theological expertise in YOUR interpretation? When you have consulted the majority of bishops as to whether or not VP is the norm, let me know - maybe then I’ll listen.

Until the church revises her position on this or until the local Ordinary directs his clergy to celebrate A.O., it is fruitless for you to sit in judgment of what I may or may not believe. It is completely tacky and uncharitable. The official Church documents I presented speak for themselves, not I, not Fr. Z, not Wikipedia. The only lawful interpreter, as I said, is the Church herself, who obviously disagrees with you.

It’s a little scarey to jump in here but I might try. I think something being the NORM and something being the PREFERRED are two different things. It could be that it has become the NORM but there are those that might PREFER something else but don’t want to go against the NORM. Priests and Bishops may prefer not facing the people but don’t want to upset others. Once, at a daily mass on All Souls Day a priest chose not to face us and said he liked doing it that way but it wasn’t his normal practice. Whether or not it was his preference I don’t know.

I think maybe that is the type of statement needed to show what you are trying to say but haven’t. Something that states the bishops PREFER to face the people rather than not face the people. Maybe?

Just a thought.

 

[Cristiano]

…P/S … I am placing Floresco on ignore, for this discussion is very uncharitable.

Do you think that this statement does really add anything to the discussion and that it does not create any further resentment? Does it bring charity to the discussion? Was she insulting with her comments, if yes can you please show where?

 

[floresco]

It’s a little scarey to jump in here but I might try. I think something being the NORM and something being the PREFERRED are two different things. It could be that it has become the NORM but there are those that might PREFER something else but don’t want to go against the NORM.

Yes, both these things are different from each other and also both are different from the Church teaching that something should be preferred. There are several ideas being conflated.

Thank you for attempting to bring some clarity to the discussion. It was very courageous of you.

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco,

I have had enough of your allegations and sophistries that have totally twisted my words. Look through the entire thread, as I have done, and review my words. Let’s start at post 18. Your posts in black, mine in red, comments in navy.

1. The quote cited here seems to be from commentary on an official text rather than an official text. I do not think it is authoritative.

[This is a misnomer from Wikipedia who does not understand how our Church uses the word “Commentary.” All of the official records and acts of the Church are recorded in A.A.S., If you look this up, it says in the title, “Commentarium Officiale.” Your take on the word ‘commentary’ assumed that the Notitiae was therefore unofficial, and you ran with your error accusing me of presenting unauthorized material.]

By combining a quote of GIRM 229 with the non-authoritative editorial from Notitiae you may give the impression that the Church teaches versus populum is to be preferred.
[This is where you began your accusations and attributed this claim to me. I never once stated this. You did.]

1. Are you aware that, while BOTH postures are allowed, the preferred form, as stated, is versus populum? As was stated in the Notitiae the Cardinal specifically made reference to]
   [This was not my teaching, but a reference to that of the Cardinal.]
2. You are echoing my own words earlier, where I stated that BOTH are allowed. …] I already agreed with you that AO is permissible, but remember that it is the Bishop who has the final word.
3. I am agreeing with you that both postures are allowed but disagreeing that the Church teaches that versus populum is to be preferred. The quotes you cited do not support that.

[Again, this was not my teaching. I simply presented the documents - that’s all.]

1. It says nothing about versus populum being preferable. I have no question about it being lawful, but you really have not been able to construct a good argument for your position.
2. I don’t have to - the Church has spoken.
   [You are still putting words in my mouth. I maintained even then, that the Church has spoken - not me. So far, no posts of mine attempted to teach that VP is preferable.]
3. I believe what the Church teaches. When someone **claims **that the Church teaches something that she does not, I have an obligation to point out the truth.
   **

If I correctly understand the nature of what Cardinal Estevez was writing, he was not speaking in the name of the Church However, there is no official teaching from the Church that says this is the preferred position.
[You finally corrected this and agreed he IS speaking for the Church.]

107.This discussion is about you claiming the Church teaches versus populum is to be preferred when she does not in fact teach this.
*　*

1. But neither of these things is equivalent to the Church teaching that VP is to be preferred.
2. The bishops having a preference is not the same as the Church teaching that it must be preferred. The latter is what you claimed.
3. Yes, both these things are different from each other and also both are different from the Church teaching that something should be preferred.

Can you see how many times you pinned your false claim to me? Count them.
I’m going to send this to Thomas Casey because I believe it is bordering strongly on intimidation and cyber bullying.

 

[floresco]

Can you see how many times you pinned your false claim to me? Count them.
I’m going to send this to Thomas Casey because I believe it is bordering strongly on intimidation and cyber bullying.

Post #19 of this thread was written by you. Its second paragraph is:

Are you aware that I am fully cognizant of the GIRM #299’s content? ** Are you aware that, while BOTH postures are allowed, the preferred form, as stated, is versus populum?** [As was stated in the Notitiae the Cardinal specifically made reference to]

In this paragraph you claim that GIRM 299 states that VP is preferred. You also claim that the referenced article in Notitiae states this. The former claim is incorrect. You misunderstood GIRM 299. It was unclear, but Cardinal Estevez explained what it meant. The latter claim is correct, but the article in question was an editorial and was not authoritative. I have presented evidence to support my assessment of your claims.

Telling a person that she has misunderstood something is not bullying.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Can you see how many times you pinned your false claim to me? Count them.
I’m going to send this to Thomas Casey because I believe it is bordering strongly on intimidation and cyber bullying.

Please, enough, I’ve been viewing this conversation from afar over the past 48 hours.

You and floresco appear to have arrived at a genuine intellectual disagreement and you both, (but in particular you, Sirach2) need to show charity for one another’s positions. You’ve neglected the teaching of the Catechism which states that is proper to assume that our detractors have noble intent in their disagreements with us.

Let it go and give floresco the benefit of the doubt. I confess that I am likewise unconvinced by your proofs, but I’m open to correction if it should be found that my interpretation is mistaken. I understand that versus populum is allowed, but the documents don’t seem to state one way or the other which is to be ‘preferred’, and yet this seems to have become the modern convention nonetheless.

 

[floresco]

[This is a misnomer from Wikipedia who does not understand how our Church uses the word “Commentary.” All of the official records and acts of the Church are recorded in A.A.S., If you look this up, it says in the title, “Commentarium Officiale.” Your take on the word ‘commentary’ assumed that the Notitiae was therefore unofficial, and you ran with your error accusing me of presenting unauthorized material.]

While Wikipedia could easily be wrong, there was also a citation of an article by Fr. Z on the EWTN site:

It must be noted that Notitiae is the official publication of the
congregation. It relates various speeches of the Holy Father, minutes
of plenary sessions of the congregations, various continuing
scholarly studies accepted in manuscript or undertaken by the
congregation concerning the liturgy; provides the ordinary prayers
for newly beatified or canonized saints to be used in the Mass or the
Liturgy of the Hours; publishes decrees of the same congregation;
from time to time responds formally and publicly to questions raised
about the liturgy with official clarifications or interpretations;
and also provides editorials or opinions. While some of the things in
Notitiae have an official character, such as a decree or
clarification, an editorial has no authority other than that derived
from the strength of its arguments and ability to persuade.

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/TURNTABL.TXT

I do not think we can so easily dismiss the views of Fr. Z and the EWTN editors.

 

[floresco]

From post #30 by Sirach2, the first paragraph:

I totally disagree with your interpretation of the latin. There would never have been the need to adopt the words “celebratio versus populum peragi possit” unless specific clarification was needed to celebrate facing the people. The only requisite would have been to state that the altar be free-standing, so that incensing could be facilitated. You two are stretching for the moon to make your point, and it shows up as being argumentative. There are just too many other places where the posture has been clearly demonstrated as lawful, adviseable, preferred, and theologically correct.

(I added the bold and underline)

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Can you see how many times you pinned your false claim to me? Count them. I’m going to send this to Thomas Casey because I believe it is bordering strongly on intimidation and cyber bullying.

I’m not seeing any false claims. It actually looks more like you’re running to the moderator because you disagree (strongly) with someone. Floresco has done nothing to warrant any admonishing of any nature. If you’re going to post in a forum, then prepare to find people with opposing opinions (or facts as may be the case). Public threats to report someone to the moderator is actually much more of intimidation than anything else. If you’re going to report, then report, but there’s no need to mention it to the world.

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco:

Post #19 of this thread was written by you. Its second paragraph is:
Quote:
Are you aware that I am fully cognizant of the GIRM #299’s content? Are you aware that, while BOTH postures are allowed, the preferred form, as stated, is versus populum? As was stated in the Notitiae the Cardinal specifically made reference to]

In this paragraph you claim that GIRM 299 states that VP is preferred. You also claim that the referenced article in Notitiae states this. The former claim is incorrect. You misunderstood GIRM 299. It was unclear, but Cardinal Estevez explained what it meant. The latter claim is correct, but the article in question was an editorial and was not authoritative. I have presented evidence to support my assessment of your claims.

Again, false representation. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, after time and again explaining to you, read again …

I did NOT claim that GIRM 299 states VP is preferred.
I stated clearly that it was referred to by the Cardinal specifically in his mention of the number and pages of the Notitiae. Why would you attribute my words to the GIRM, when I made deliberate reference to the Notitiae as the basis for my belief?

As for the Notitiae being unofficial, you claim I do not understand, and that this is unofficial material: “While some of the things in Notitiae have an official character, such as a decree or clarification, an editorial has no authority other than that derived from the strength of its arguments and ability to persuade.” (Fr. Z) Incidentally, EWTN was merely hosting his article, not standing with it. You cannot cite them as authorities simply on this account, nor fault me for not agreeing with Fr. Z. There is no higher authority than CDWDS and this was an official response by the official Prefect, who sourced an official record of Notitiae, citing its number and page. It doesn’t get any clearer, no matter what Fr. Z happens to opine.

The Notitiae is a “Commentary” or record, if you will of actual proceedings. Certainly, it has no authority other than a record of proceedings, unlike an encyclical, et al. In the same manner, I explained to you that this is the identical situation with all of the official Acta Apostolicae Sedis documentations, all the way back to 1909. The heading states that it is “Commentarium Officiale.” It does not inform, but merely records the proceedings for historical reference. You discredit me with downplaying the importance of the Cardinal or anyone else using the Notitiae similarly, AAS] by reducing it to the literal dictionary definition of “commentary” as a lay person would understand it. Not so in church language.

Therefore, when I attributed this to the Cardinal as part of his official response, VP is, as he stated by reference to Notitiae, a preference, while not discounting the validity of ad orientem. Why is this so hard to grasp? Why are you so willing to negate it without any other consideration of probability? Why do you assume you are the only one who is correct and stalk all of my posts to discredit the posture?

 

[floresco]

Again, false representation. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, after time and again explaining to you, read again …

I did NOT claim that GIRM 299 states VP is preferred.
I stated clearly that it was referred to by the Cardinal specifically in his mention of the number and pages of the Notitiae. Why would you attribute my words to the GIRM, when I made deliberate reference to the Notitiae as the basis for my belief?

Because I misunderstood you. I read the sentences “Are you aware that I am fully cognizant of the GIRM #299’s content? Are you aware that, while BOTH postures are allowed, the preferred form, as stated, is versus populum?” together. I understood the phrase “as stated” to refer to the immediately preceding statement and therefore to mean the content of GIRM 299. I apologize for misunderstanding.

As for the Notitiae being unofficial, you claim I do not understand, and that this is unofficial material: “While some of the things in Notitiae have an official character, such as a decree or clarification, an editorial has no authority other than that derived from the strength of its arguments and ability to persuade.” (Fr. Z) Incidentally, EWTN was merely hosting his article, not standing with it. You cannot cite them as authorities simply on this account, nor fault me for not agreeing with Fr. Z. There is no higher authority than CDWDS and this was an official response by the official Prefect, who sourced an official record of Notitiae, citing its number and page. It doesn’t get any clearer, no matter what Fr. Z happens to opine.

Being cited by the Prefect in an official entry does not change the status of a non-authoritative entry. His authority does not transfer to it. If he had said “everything in this editorial is true” perhaps you might claim that its status changed. But all he said was to compare what he was saying with the editorial. I really think that Fr. Z understands these things better than you do. And I doubt that EWTN would be hosting an article that contained errors.

The Notitiae is a “Commentary” or record, if you will of actual proceedings. Certainly, it has no authority other than a record of proceedings, unlike an encyclical, et al. In the same manner, I explained to you that this is the identical situation with all of the official Acta Apostolicae Sedis documentations, all the way back to 1909. The heading states that it is “Commentarium Officiale.” It does not inform, but merely records the proceedings for historical reference. You discredit me with downplaying the importance of the Cardinal or anyone else using the Notitiae similarly, AAS] by reducing it to the literal dictionary definition of “commentary” as a lay person would understand it. Not so in church language.

Notitiae contains official records of proceedings among other kinds of writing. It is like a journal in which some of the articles are official and others are not. It has nothing to do with the meaning of commentary. The nature of the article determines its level of authority.

It is absurd to claim that I am downplaying the importance of the Cardinal. I fully acknowledge the authority of the Prefect of the CDW.

Therefore, when I attributed this to the Cardinal as part of his official response, VP is, as he stated by reference to Notitiae, a preference, while not discounting the validity of ad orientem. Why is this so hard to grasp? Why are you so willing to negate it without any other consideration of probability? Why do you assume you are the only one who is correct and stalk all of my posts to discredit the posture?

The author of the editorial thinks that VP should be preferred. The Cardinal is not taking that position by referring to it. He is saying that the editorial makes good points about the advantages of VP. The Cardinal says that VP is “legitimate and often advisable.” That is his position. Neither the Cardinal nor the Church teach that the preferred position is VP. I am not trying to discredit VP. I want Church teaching to be accurately represented. You have misrepresented it in your posts so I am pointing that out.

 

[choliks]

Fair point. Latin wouldn’t make a liturgy more valid than it is. Or, for that matter, make a US dollar bill Catholic. Cicero wasn’t even a Christian; yet we’ve adopted his moral code into our Western law and even our early Church fathers (St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas et al) were impressed with some of his writings, particularly “De Officiis” (“On Duties.”) (It still is an excellent read, by the way.)

But the other way to look at it is this. Take Shakespeare, for example. Its translation into Chinese would still be Shakespeare to someone knowing only Chinese but would he be able to capture the true nuances of the Shakespeare language? Or its sounds or “vibrations” (a very popular term in the 60’s)? Of course not, and an oscilloscope would show that the sounds are different.

Same thing with translations of the ancient liturgy, no? Where is the preservation of the Christian Latin nuance? Modern languages simply can’t do it. There was a good reason why Trent condemned the vulgar tongue everywhere and Vatican II insisted on preserving Latin.

I hear you, PV. It’s just problematic for the faithful who doesn’t have the resources to learn Latin.

Peace.

 

[ProVobis]

I hear you, PV. It’s just problematic for the faithful who doesn’t have the resources to learn Latin.

Peace.

Actually one doesn’t need to memorize the entire Latin dictionary as there are only 606 distinct actual words used in the EF ordinary, including the Leonine prayers.

gmr.sourceforge.net/html/word_list.html

I wonder if anyone has come up with flashcards for these yet?

 

[patrick457]

Actually one doesn’t need to memorize the entire Latin dictionary as there are only 606 distinct actual words used in the EF ordinary, including the Leonine prayers.

gmr.sourceforge.net/html/word_list.html

I wonder if anyone has come up with flashcards for these yet?

Well, learning what et cum spiritu tuo and Deo gratias mean shouldn’t be too much of a hassle.