Vatican forces bishop to provide Latin Mass; overturns restrictions

[diggerdomer]

I am sorry but that is ridiculous. If that were the case, SP would have been unnecessary since your definition would only cover those who already had access to an indult Mass. The letter and introduction to SP are clear in the fact that this MP was necessary because of the indult not being used “widely and generously” as it was supposed to be.

I don’t think what I said is ridiculous, and I don’t think what you said is ridiculous. Where did you read that SP was written because the indult was not being used as widely and generously as it was supposed to be? I didn’t see that in SP. If I’m missing something please help…thanks.

SP does broaden the usage of the 1962 Missal beyond what the indult did. That does not mean that it was encouraging those who had not been celebrating according to the 1962 Missal to all of a sudden start to. If you disagree, fine, but please share with me some documentation so I can be better informed.

Why would there be a need for Article 7 of SP with instruction about what to do if the pastor does not “willingly accept thier request” and an instuction to the Bishop to go to the Ecclesia Dei commission for assistance? These articles are irrelevant if there are already indult Masses sufficiently serving the needs of the people.

I find this a fascinating issue. I was completely stunned by it. With everything going on in our Church these days, here’s a green light for any individual to basically go straight to the Vatican with a complaint. Wow. That’s unbelievable in many respects.

Anyway. Why is there a need? I don’t know, but from reading SP I’d have to infer that Benedict XVI is aware the some may resist what he wanted to accomplish, so he wanted to ensure those who were celebrating according to the 1962 Missal did not encounter obstacles to their worship.

What do you think the purpose was?

INot that the word “adhere” is used regarding members of the faithful before the 1988 MP which allowed indult Masses. This is the same word used in Article 5 so it can’t mean only those already attending a Mass with the Missal of 1962.

I don’t think I understand what you’re saying here…sorry…can you clairfy?

Cheers

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=diggerdomer;4971631]I’ve gotten this idea from reading the English language. I’ve seen the word translated in English as either “stable” or “continually.”

WHERE? I’d like a link to that definition.

You translate the word stable to mean continuous. That’s quite a stretch. I, however, agree with the dictionary which says that:

marked by the ability to withstand stress without structural damage or distortion
Synonyms: fast, firm, sound, stalwart, strong, sturdy
Related Words: dependable, durable, reliable; solid; cohesive, tough
While the Antonyms are: insecure, weak
unsound, unstable, unsteady
& I’ll add “undependable”.

I also translate it to mean…in the usage it was given in the Motu Proprio…reliable, in that the priest is able to depend upon/rely on the fact that the size & interest of the group will not change. That’s just plain english grammar & logic.

Of course, the Latin version of the Motu Proprio says “stabilis ac definita” which translates to “firm & definite”. The Holy Father simply meant what he said…a firm & definite group which the priest could depend on to attend the Mass that he has arranged for them. I haven’t come in contact with a TLM devotee’ that wasn’t firm & definite about his attendance, yet

BTW., for someone who just joined this forum, you’ve sure been busy. 260+ posts in 5 days?? You must have a lot of free time. (or an agenda)

 

[Chiltepin]

There is a Friday noon EF Mass at the chapel on the University of St. Thomas campus. I haven’t tried that since I couldn’t get back in time to pick up the kids from school.
The Cardinal said in an interview that there were four in our diocese. Even though the interview was after St. Theresa’s stopped holding thiers, I think he included that one in the count. I have never been able to find the fourth one. There is nothing on the diocisan website, no information available when calling the chancery and nothing on MassTimes. He may be counting Queen of Angels in Dickenson or St. Michael’s in Spring but both are SSPX so I hope not. There’s a new one in Brenham. It’s not our diocese but not much farther (and a much prettier drive) than downtown for me.

I wonder if he is counting Holy Rosary. They say a Novis Ordo in Latin. I have not been over there, but I have been meaning to go see what that’s like.

Yes, a drive to Brenham is very pretty, especially if it’s wild flower season!

 

[diggerdomer]

I didn’t translate the word. I merely noted that I’ve seen an English translation that uses “stable” and I’ve seen a message on a listserv from a priest canon lawyer who says the better translation is “continually.” The Vatican web site Latin version has “continenter” not “stabiliter” so it seems that those who question “stable” as the best English translation have a point.

Cheers

WHERE? I’d like a link to that definition.

You translate the word stable to mean continuous. That’s quite a stretch. I, however, agree with the dictionary which says that:

marked by the ability to withstand stress without structural damage or distortion
Synonyms: fast, firm, sound, stalwart, strong, sturdy
Related Words: dependable, durable, reliable; solid; cohesive, tough
While the Antonyms are: insecure, weak
unsound, unstable, unsteady
& I’ll add “undependable”.

I also translate it to mean…in the usage it was given in the Motu Proprio…reliable, in that the priest is able to depend upon/rely on the fact that the size & interest of the group will not change. That’s just plain english grammar & logic.

Of course, the Latin version of the Motu Proprio says “stabilis ac definita” which translates to “firm & definite”. The Holy Father simply meant what he said…a firm & definite group which the priest could depend on to attend the Mass that he has arranged for them. I haven’t come in contact with a TLM devotee’ that wasn’t firm & definite about his attendance, yet

BTW., for someone who just joined this forum, you’ve sure been busy. 260+ posts in 5 days?? You must have a lot of free time. (or an agenda)

 

[Corki]

I don’t think what I said is ridiculous, and I don’t think what you said is ridiculous. Where did you read that SP was written because the indult was not being used as widely and generously as it was supposed to be? I didn’t see that in SP. If I’m missing something please help…thanks.

From the accompanying letter:

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

He specifically mentions Bishops not using the Indult and that the new MP “frees” the Bishops from being the decision makers on if the EF can be offered.

SP does broaden the usage of the 1962 Missal beyond what the indult did. That does not mean that it was encouraging those who had not been celebrating according to the 1962 Missal to all of a sudden start to. If you disagree, fine, but please share with me some documentation so I can be better informed.

Article 5 refers to requests in the future tense. It cannot then mean only those who already have a Mass in the EF since then no request would be necessary.

In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

I find this a fascinating issue. I was completely stunned by it. With everything going on in our Church these days, here’s a green light for any individual to basically go straight to the Vatican with a complaint. Wow. That’s unbelievable in many respects.

Actually, this was previously “green lighted” in 2004 with Redemptionis Sacramentum where the laity was not only allowed but encouraged to bring complaints about liturgical abuse to the Vatican’s attentin via the CDW.

Anyway. Why is there a need? I don’t know, but from reading SP I’d have to infer that Benedict XVI is aware the some may resist what he wanted to accomplish, so he wanted to ensure those who were celebrating according to the 1962 Missal did not encounter obstacles to their worship.

What do you think the purpose was?

The stated purpose was the liberalization of the EF of the Mass. There is commentary on the Summum Pontificum website but only in Italian, which I don’t read. The Secretary has repeatedly blasted Bishops who are not compying with SP, including those where no indult Mass was available.

I don’t think I understand what you’re saying here…sorry…can you clairfy?

Sorry, typo. I meant to say “Note that the word ‘adhere’…”

 

[Corki]

I wonder if he is counting Holy Rosary. They say a Novis Ordo in Latin. I have not been over there, but I have been meaning to go see what that’s like.

He may have been. This is the quote. It was an interview with Zenit.

As far as “Summorum Pontificum,” we have four parishes in the diocese where the extraordinary form of the Roman rite is said regularly, including one downtown parish where it is said daily.

While he mentions Summorum Pontificum, he also talks about daily Mass at, what I assume is Annunciation. It is on weekdays but only Tuesdays and Thursdays, so daily? It just makes me think he was speaking “off the cuff” and not necessarily completely accurate.

 

[diggerdomer]

]
Article 5 refers to requests in the future tense. It cannot then mean only those who already have a Mass in the EF since then no request would be necessary.

In the English translation I found online I didn’t read future tense; i said:

In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favoring the unity of the whole Church.

Maybe that’s not what you’re referring to, or maybe you have a different translation. For me, the fact that it says “where there IS” is important. Not where there could be, or might be, but where there is.

Anyway. Thanks for the contribution.

Cheers

 

[CradleCath]

I didn’t translate the word. I merely noted that I’ve seen an English translation that uses “stable” and I’ve seen a message on a listserv from a priest canon lawyer who says the better translation is "continually."

Actually, the phrase you refer to is translated “continue to emerge”.
I’d like a link to the articles/ message that you refer to above. If one is going to use messages on listservs to prove a point…from people, priests or not, who comment on liturgical documents…one needs to provide the names of such people.

If you can’t give a reliable reference re this “priest canon lawyer” who posts on a listserv, I’ll not be discussing it with you anymore.

 

[diggerdomer]

diggerdomer;4972270:

Actually, the phrase you refer to is translated “continue to emerge”.
.

Where is that translation? I’d like a link to the articles/ message that you refer to above. If one is going to use messages on listservs to prove a point…from people, priests or not, who comment on liturgical documents…one needs to provide the names of such people.

Cheers

 

[Corki]

In the English translation I found online I didn’t read future tense; i said:

Maybe that’s not what you’re referring to, or maybe you have a different translation. For me, the fact that it says “where there IS” is important. Not where there could be, or might be, but where there is.

Anyway. Thanks for the contribution.

Cheers

No, this is the portion where I refer to future tense

the pastor should willingly accept their requests

There would be no need for the pastor to accept a new request if they were already celebrating the Missal of 1962.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, this is the portion where I refer to future tense

There would be no need for the pastor to accept a new request if they were already celebrating the Missal of 1962.

Not true. They could have been celebrating elsewhere, but now they are asking that their celebration occur in their parish. That’s why they would ask the pastor.

Example: where I live there’s a community that had been celebrating Mass according to the 1962 Rite. After SP, they wanted to celebrate in the parish I worship at (where before they had celebrated elsewhere). And so they are.

Cheers

 

[Corki]

Not true. They could have been celebrating elsewhere, but now they are asking that their celebration occur in their parish. That’s why they would ask the pastor.

Example: where I live there’s a community that had been celebrating Mass according to the 1962 Rite. After SP, they wanted to celebrate in the parish I worship at (where before they had celebrated elsewhere). And so they are.

Well, that wouldn’t be so bad. There are quite a few of us in my parish that have attended other EF Masses before and after the MP. But for most people, especially those in diocese that had no Missal of 1962 Masses, this would leave them with nothing. Since the MP is aimed at addressing the needs of the people who “adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition,” it makes no sense that this would make more available what was already available but not address at all those faithful who adhered to the earlier tradition but had no access to an EF Mass previously. You have to read quite a lot into the document to come up with that interpretation. Not only that but the whole cover letter from the Pope which was anticipating resistance from Bishops who had not already agreed to an indult Mass doesn’t make sense either, using your interpretation. If a Bishop didn’t grant the indult, there wouldn’t be a group that already had the Mass. Unless there was an odd migration from one diocese to another but then they wouldn’t be stable (or any other translated word put in that sentence). So what would the Bishops have been upset about?

 

[Dauphin]

Cardinal Castillon may have said that, but it’s not in Summorum Pontificum (SP) that a priest can simply decide to celebrate a public regularly scheduled TLM. I’ve read SP. It says priests can celebrate freely “mass without the people.” It says the faithful are free to attend such celebrations. That’s different than saying a priest can individually decide to celebrate a public regularly scheduled liturgy according to the 1962 Missal.

If you disagree, show me where in SP I can learn more.

Cheers

It seems you’re desperate to shove people like me back into the ghetto, and no amount of reasoning is going to deter you from this aim.

Cardinal Castrillon has presented the authentic interpretation of the Motu Proprio, which is fundamentally permissive and promotional, not restrictive. It is absolutely certain that you are completely wrong about the intent of the Motu Proprio, since the Church’s lawgiver would not permit the Cardinal placed in charge of the file to so openly distort its meaning.

All you have to do is read the letter which accompanied the MP to know the Pope’s mind. He speaks of young people discovering this form and coming to embrace it, not just old cranks who can’t get over their nostalgia. He didn’t create some cut-off date after which no one may come to adhere to the TLM. There could hardly be a more absurd interpretation than what you’ve presented.

 

[diggerdomer]

It seems you’re desperate to shove people like me back into the ghetto, and no amount of reasoning is going to deter you from this aim.

Not at all. I have no idea why you would say that, I never assumed you were “in the ghetto” (whatever you mean by that). I am sincerely sorry if you took offense at anything I posted. Please accept my apology for whatever you interpreted that was offensive.

Ifi you could point me to where I can read a copy of the letter you refer to I’d appreciate it. I’ve read SP but not any letter accompanying it. Thank you.

Cheers

 

[Corki]

Cardinal Castillon may have said that, but it’s not in Summorum Pontificum (SP) that a priest can simply decide to celebrate a public regularly scheduled TLM. I’ve read SP. It says priests can celebrate freely “mass without the people.” It says the faithful are free to attend such celebrations. That’s different than saying a priest can individually decide to celebrate a public regularly scheduled liturgy according to the 1962 Missal.

If you disagree, show me where in SP I can learn more.

Cardinal Castillon Hoyos is the President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. That is the commission charged with implementing and interpreting Summorum Pontificum. No one’s interpretation, other than the Holy Father’s, carries more weight than his. If you don’t accept his interpretation, there is nothing that will convince you other than a personal phone call from Pope Benedict XVI.

P.S. He’s the one who sent the letter reference in the OP. A letter from him is a letter from the Vatican.

 

[Corki]

Ifi you could point me to where I can read a copy of the letter you refer to I’d appreciate it. I’ve read SP but not any letter accompanying it. Thank you.

Cheers

Here it is on the Vatican website.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

 

[Dauphin]

Not at all. I have no idea why you would say that, I never assumed you were “in the ghetto” (whatever you mean by that). I am sincerely sorry if you took offense at anything I posted. Please accept my apology for whatever you interpreted that was offensive.

Ifi you could point me to where I can read a copy of the letter you refer to I’d appreciate it. I’ve read SP but not any letter accompanying it. Thank you.

Cheers

By “in the ghetto”, I meant being treated as second-class Catholics, with our liturgical attachments only being “tolerated” or accepted “with difficulty”. For the last 40 years, anyone deeply attached to the more ancient usage has been considered some sort of rebel or malcontent who needs to be educated about the great new springtime the modern liturgy has ushered in.

The letter which accompanied the Motu Proprio is here:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Here’s an article in which Cardinal Castrillon provides the authentic interpretation (ie. the Pope wants to promote the TLM):

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/05/pceds-card-castrillon-hoyos-celebrate-tlm-in-parishes-even-when-it-isnt-requested/

 

[Frosty]

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Here’s an article in which Cardinal Castrillon provides the authentic interpretation (ie. the Pope wants to promote the TLM):

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/05/pceds-card-castrillon-hoyos-celebrate-tlm-in-parishes-even-when-it-isnt-requested/

Since when are comments made as an introduction to an instructional DVD considered to be the authentic interpretation of the intentions and desires of the Pontiff? How authoritive do you take the following comments by Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos to be?

ROME (CNS) – Rather than being grateful, some people have reacted to Pope Benedict XVI’s wider permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass with further demands, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos.

The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” spoke Sept. 16 at a conference marking the first anniversary of “Summorum Pontificum,” the document by which Pope Benedict expanded access to the Tridentine rite, the Mass rite used before the Second Vatican Council.

Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.

He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome’s Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.

Such people, he said, are “insatiable, incredible.”

“They do not know the harm they are doing,” Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately “they go directly to the Internet” and post their complaints

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804705.htm

Seems to me that picking and choosing unofficial statements that a so-called traditionalist thinks is beneficial to the cause is the favourite pastime. Personally, I’m happy that the EF is now more widely available but the way to authentically promote it is not by attributing something to the Pope’s wishes that he hasn’t stated himself. When the long awaited letter clarifying some of the questions and mis-interpretations of SP is issued, we’ll all know just where the Church stands on the issue. Until then, it’s just a lot of hot air from people who are not satisfied …on either extreme!

 

[Dauphin]

Since when are comments made as an introduction to an instructional DVD considered to be the authentic interpretation of the intentions and desires of the Pontiff? How authoritive do you take the following comments by Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos to be?

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804705.htm

Seems to me that picking and choosing unofficial statements that a so-called traditionalist thinks is beneficial to the cause is the favourite pastime. Personally, I’m happy that the EF is now more widely available but the way to authentically promote it is not by attributing something to the Pope’s wishes that he hasn’t stated himself. When the long awaited letter clarifying some of the questions and mis-interpretations of SP is issued, we’ll all know just where the Church stands on the issue. Until then, it’s just a lot of hot air from people who are not satisfied …on either extreme!

The requests the Cardinal describes there were absurd and unreasonable. His statements aren’t at all irreconcilable.

That the Pope doesn’t intend a restrictive interpretation of the Motu Proprio is absolutely clear from the repeated statements of Cardinal Castrillon. It was intended as a gift for the whole Church - as a generous opening of her liturgical treasures to all Catholics. This has been repeatedly made absolutely clear. Only the most obstinate sandalista could continue to deny it:

“All this liturgical richness, all this spiritual richness, and all the prayers so well-preserved during the centuries, all of this is offered by the Rome of today for all. As a gift for all, it is not a gift merely for the so-called traditionalists. No, it is a gift for the whole Catholic Church,”

 

[mmboys07]

O.K. I have read all the entries in this thread. My observations:

1. Cheers has learned well his post-Vatican II lessons on how to twist language to accomplish the negation of anything smacking of Orthodoxy.
2. His reading of of SP, like another poster implied, would nullify any need for SP.
3. I even sense the presence of former President Clinton’s logic when Cheers grounds his argument on the meaning of “is”.
4. The purpose of SP is clear to anyone of sound mind and soul; to enable priests and anyone when who cares to attend the ability to participate in the Pre-Vatican II Mass without interference from the Bishop, other than ensuring a proper celebration of the Mass.
5. Still there are Bishops who will do all in their power to devise delaying tactics of all kinds. In my diocese the Bishop has never, even once, to my knowledge made a public statement about SP. Furthermore, he has required that all parishes must get his approval before changing any Mass times at the parish level. This means he can restrict the Tridentine Mass without actually having to admit that is what he is doing.
6. And yes, I am accusing Cheers of intellectual dishonesty. I doubt anyone of good faith could really put forth such nonsense.