Vatican urges welcome, with a warning, for traditionalists [John Allen]

[Catholic_Press]

http://ncronline.org/files/05272011p15pha.jpg?1306188926

                                People kneel as they receive Communion during a Tridentine-rite Mass celebrated at the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican May 15. It was the first time in several decades that the rite was celebrated at the altar. (CNS/Paul Haring)

In a new instruction, the Vatican has urged bishops to show “generous welcome” to traditionalists wanting to celebrate the old Latin Mass under the terms of a 2007 ruling from Pope Benedict XVI, which established the old Mass as an “extraordinary form” of the Latin rite.

The instruction, titled Universae Ecclesiae, was released May 13.

                                0

read more

More…

 

[ProVobis]

No offense to John Allen but why is it that I am not able to read one article about the SP or UE without some reference to the SSPX or some “schismatic” group? And they expect people to change their habits overnight to drive an hour or two to Mass every Sunday which could damage their standing with the Church, their own parishes, and their understanding of the Mass in “a language they can’t understand” or it’s too “elitist” for them? If they truly want people who dropped out of the Church to come out, perhaps I would suggest they develop some better marketing strategies than write articles like this one, which shows little else but frustration.

 

[Holly3278]

This is pretty cool. I fully agree with the Vatican on this one. That said, I have never attended an extraordinary form Mass even though I do consider myself to be a traditional Catholic. I would love to attend one at some point in the future though.

 

[Stylites]

No offense to John Allen but why is it that I am not able to read one article about the SP or UE without some reference to the SSPX or some “schismatic” group?

I believe the article was reporting on “Universae Ecclesiae” which he says has a warning it it, and hence the title of the article. How many other disobedient, dissenting and erstwhile schismatic groups are there besides the unnamed SSPX?

In addition to those gestures of sympathy and support, however, there’s also a clear warning to traditionalists. The instruction tells them to steer clear of breakaway groups that challenge either the validity of the “new Mass” after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) or the authority of the pope.

Without mentioning it by name, that language would appear to be directed at the Society of St. Pius X, launched by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Vatican declared the group schismatic after Lefebvre ordained bishops in 1988 in defiance of Rome. Benedict attempted to end that breach in 2009 by lifting the excommunications of those bishops, a step that stirred global controversy when it emerged that one of them, Richard Williamson, has expressed doubt about the reality of the Holocaust.

 

[FAB]

No offense to John Allen but why is it that I am not able to read one article about the SP or UE without some reference to the SSPX or some “schismatic” group? And they expect people to change their habits overnight to drive an hour or two to Mass every Sunday which could damage their standing with the Church, their own parishes, and their understanding of the Mass in “a language they can’t understand” or it’s too “elitist” for them? If they truly want people who dropped out of the Church to come out, perhaps I would suggest they develop some better marketing strategies than write articles like this one, which shows little else but frustration.

Because there is a clear warning to traditionalist who might want the go down the road of the SSPX, the EF of the mass is allowed, but you must accept the OF and the norms of VII. The use of the EF is not to infer that there will be any turning back of the clock on those reforms.

 

[ProVobis]

I believe the article was reporting on “Universae Ecclesiae” which he says has a warning it it, and hence the title of the article. How many other disobedient, dissenting and erstwhile schismatic groups are there besides the unnamed SSPX?

There are many “independent” chapels as well. These are usually not widely reported nor that obvious to passers by.

But that wasn’t my point. There are still many who see the TLM as non-Catholic or not in communion with the Pope, even in the parishes where they are celebrated legitimately with the OF. These kinds of “warnings” don’t serve a useful purpose in promoting the EF, in my opinion.

 

[Stylites]

There are many “independent” chapels as well. These are usually not widely reported nor that obvious to passers by.

But that wasn’t my point. There are still many who see the TLM as non-Catholic or not in communion with the Pope, even in the parishes where they are celebrated legitimately with the OF. These kinds of “warnings” don’t serve a useful purpose in promoting the EF, in my opinion.

Well, you will need to take it up with the author of “Universae Ecclesiae” who offered both gestures of sympathy and support AND warnings.

 

[MarkThompson]

Well, you will need to take it up with the author of “Universae Ecclesiae” who offered both gestures of sympathy and support AND warnings.

Cardinal Levada, you mean?

 

[tjt3]

Pope Benedicts easing of restrictions on the celebration of the Tridentine mass is just the beginning of the Popes reform of the reform in liturgical celebration of mass. The Rome
conferance that preceded the Tridentine Mass celebrated at the Alter of the chair in St. Peters Basilica was on the Summorum Pontificum and according to Cardinal Koch the Vaticans top ecumenist is the beginning of a long term goal to launch a new common rite.
The new common rite will be a combination of the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine rite as
according to the Holy Father they should not just co-exist but enhance each other. It was also
noted that there seemed to be a neglect in the Paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration.
The Cardinal also stated that it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovations had intentionally gone beyond the council`s stated intentions.
On another note many do not know that the FSSP Order has been legitimatly celebrating
the Tridentine mass as their only mass for some time now and in fact when Pope Benedict
was a Cardinal in Germany invited the order to establish there.
Pax To All
Tom T

 

[Stylites]

Cardinal Levada, you mean?

I guess so, Mark. Far be it from me to want to counsel a Cardinal on what he says is useful or not.

 

[At_Trent]

Oh great, a news bot linking to dissident websites.

 

[pataburd]

Pope Benedicts easing of restrictions on the celebration of the Tridentine mass is just the beginning of the Popes reform of the reform in liturgical celebration of mass. The Rome
conferance that preceded the Tridentine Mass celebrated at the Alter of the chair in St. Peters Basilica was on the Summorum Pontificum and according to Cardinal Koch the Vaticans top ecumenist is the beginning of a long term goal to launch a new common rite.
The new common rite will be a combination of the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine rite as
according to the Holy Father they should not just co-exist but enhance each other. It was also
noted that there seemed to be a neglect in the Paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration.
The Cardinal also stated that it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovations had intentionally gone beyond the council`s stated intentions.
On another note many do not know that the FSSP Order has been legitimatly celebrating
the Tridentine mass as their only mass for some time now and in fact when Pope Benedict
was a Cardinal in Germany invited the order to establish there.
Pax To All
Tom T

Hopefully, Rome will simply give ample time, and provide ample encouragement, for the TLM to be truly “freed” and to take hold in the common Catholic consciousness. Then, let the “sensus fidei” determine which of the two rites ultimately survives.

In many ways, I think the two rites are irreconcilable. To try to generate a third rite from the OF and the EF may prove more destabilizing and divisive than the past 50 years, which has led to the current (lamentable) state of affairs.

Better to start, in my opinion, with the solid foundation of the TLM, then introduce minor but liturgically and doctrinally meaningful changes to it, which I believe was the original impetus of Vatican II.

 

[tjt3]

Pataburd, I agree with you and so dose Cardinal Koch which is why I quoted his statement
"it is legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovations had gone beyond Councils stated intentions." I my view many churches have gone beyond. This Pope is working very hard to bring reconciliation and change in the direction of a more conservative approach to the Eucharistic celebration without dividing the church any more than he has to. Youll note the
recent suppression of the Cistercian Monastery and visitations to many orders around the
world, particularly the nuns. Much of what you see today is the result of progressive, secularistic, modernistic thinking that was not, in my view caused by Vat. II, but by intentional
false interpretations of Post Conciliar Documents that resulted from Vat. II. Pope St. PiusX
warned us against this in 1907 with various Encyclicals. As far as taking time, it will indeed
take time as nothing that Rome dose is done in a short period of time or without many consultations. In the mean time we of course can realize that the Church has gone through
many, many troubled times even at the beginning with such martyrs and defenders of the
faith such as St. Justin, St. Athanasia and many others down through the years to St. Francis
of Assisi and St. Dominic, and Thomas Aquinas and St. Catherine of Sienna who had to deal
with two Popes. We need only to fix our eyes on the Gospel and the Lord and the reception of the Eucharist with humble faith and belief in whatever celebration we find ourselves in
with full knowledge that it is really what`s in our hearts that matter. And that is what God Sees.
Pax to your heart.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that part of the frustration that people who love the EF feel is legitimate.

I see the following as legitimate wishes and desires.

• to have one close by so they don’t have to drive two hours.
• to see the bishops agree more readily to the EF.
• to know that they are thought of as Catholics, not as dissidents.
• to see more priests learn the EF and want to celebrate the EF.

However, there are also some unreasonable wishes or desires.

Wanting to see the EF promoted. That was not part of SP or UE. There seems to be a belief on the part of some people that we have a duty to promote the EF. However, this begs the question. Promote the EF to do away with the OF? If that’s the meaning of promote, that is an unreasonable desire, because it is not what the Holy Father said. To inform people that it’s permissible, is legitimate and to publish places and times where people can attend.

Some want religious superiors to allow regular priests to celebrate the EF for congregations and become angry when superiors say that they will not do this or cannot do this. A request is reasonable. To demand that religious superiors provide certain services, be it a form of the mass or some other service, is unreasonable, because it’s interference with the internal life of a religious community.

People have suggested that the laity withhold financial support from dioceses and religious orders. First, that’s a form of blackmail, which is immoral. Second, to ensure that this did not happen, Trent created was is called the Exempt Religious. Those are male religious who are free of influence from the laity and bishops; but once they are in a diocese, they must be financially supported by the laity of that diocese. That law has never been revoked. It’s still in Canon Law.

Other people want to change practices and rules that are outside of the mass, to reflect those that were in place prior to Vatican II, such as veiling, longer fast before communion, the return of sisters to Catholic Schools, and the regression of religious communities to the days when they were out of compliance with their founders. This is not a reasonable wish. SP and UE speak only to the rite itself, not about the canons passed in 1983, nor about the duty of religious to return to their origins. To wish for religious who were out of compliance with their founders, because it meets out needs, is unreasonable. If there is a genuine need for religious to function in a certain ministry, then lay people who are single need to unite to form new communities, but don’t make the older communities live and work in a manner contrary to their founders’ wishes. Things like veiling and a longer fast before Holy Communion are a personal choice and no one should try to influence another person one way or the other, because it is not forbidden, nor expected.

Finally, there is a small group that wants bishops and religious superiors to command priests to learn and celebrate the EF. That’s not reasonable. It would be, if the Tridentine form were the ordinary form. However, bishops and religious superiors cannot command that which is extraordinary. That’s why the Holy Father carefully chose this term. In Church law, the term means that which is not the norm, such as EMHC. It’s something that you have permission to do, but you don’t have to do it. You can’t command what is deemed as extraordinary by the law.

The thing to do is to work to build up these stable groups required by SP and UE and present the request to the pastor. Depending on who runs your parish, you may have to deal with a bishop or a religious superior. If your parish is run by religious, you must wait for the superior to respond. If the respond is negative, then you can apply to the bishop to see if he can find a priest who wants to do it, because the bishop cannot overrule the superior. He may be able to find a priest who can help. If you don’t get the help that you need from the diocese, then you apply to Ecclesia Dei for help. But keep in mind, that even Ecclesia Dei has a limited pool of priests who want to celebrate the EF and it does not have the authority to demand that any priest do it. The Holy Father wants the younger priests to be exposed to the EF. He did not say that he wants them to celebrate it. That’s up to them or their superiors, if they’re religious.

Also, be careful how you view the FSSP. The FSSP is a very holy society. Some people are viewing them as if they were consecrated men. They are not. They are secular priests. As secular priests, they work cooperatively with the local bishop. They’re not religious. Therefore, they don’t have the freedom that religious communities have. Sometimes, I feel badly because people place expectations of them that they cannot fulfill. They’re really great guys who should not be put on the spot.

Those are just my 2¢

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

No offense to John Allen but why is it that I am not able to read one article about the SP or UE without some reference to the SSPX or some “schismatic” group? And they expect people to change their habits overnight to drive an hour or two to Mass every Sunday which could damage their standing with the Church, their own parishes, and their understanding of the Mass in “a language they can’t understand” or it’s too “elitist” for them? If they truly want people who dropped out of the Church to come out, perhaps I would suggest they develop some better marketing strategies than write articles like this one, which shows little else but frustration.

Thing is the sedevacantists are obviously schismatic, and outside the Church. I don’t think they would come back to the Church if they doubt the validity of the Pope. And I doubt they will return unless the OF itself is gone. So he feels he needs to mention the SSPX who are still currently part of the Catholic Church but has doubts about the post-Vatican II changes.

 

[tjt3]

Bro. JR, Lets be clear about the FSSP. They are a Fraternity (Clerical Society of Apostolic
Life of Pontifical right) as are the Opus Dei. Their mission is two fold: the formation and
sanctification of priests in the cadre of the traditional liturgy of the Roman Rite, and the pastoral deployment of priests in the service of the church and as all religious orders and
clerical fraternities serve the local ordinary (bishops) according to their constitutions, and with full approval of the Holy See and the local bishops, the priests provide a full sacramental
life for the faithful administered according to the liturgical books of 1962. They also have to answer to their own Superior General and Vice Superior General. Now as far as the faithful
wanting this change or that change to accomodate this wish or that, we have to realize that the
Catholic Church is NOT a democracy and we dont elect our bishops as some other faiths do. I know that there are some outspoken and well known dissenters such the Benedictine nun Joan Chittister OSB who recently was a keynote speaker at a gathering of Catholic dissenters in Detroit even after being warned that their conference did not have permission from Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit and that any who attended and celebrated would be defrocked nevertheless the various goups such as the American Catholic Council and others were warned even a second time met anyway. These are people that believe in gay marriage woman priests and pro abortion and many other left wing secular progressive movements that in their view the Church should accomodate. Not gonna happen. We dont demand from the Church. We follow its teachings and adjust our beliefs accordingly. The Church will change as the Holy Father and its leaders in Rome guided by the Holy Spirit see fit to
change it , this is the way it has been since the beginning and the way it will be till the end.
Blessings and Peace

 

[JReducation]

Bro. JR, Lets be clear about the FSSP. They are a Fraternity (Clerical Society of Apostolic
Life of Pontifical right) as are the Opus Dei. Their mission is two fold: the formation and
sanctification of priests in the cadre of the traditional liturgy of the Roman Rite, and the pastoral deployment of priests in the service of the church and as all religious orders and
clerical fraternities serve the local ordinary (bishops) according to their constitutions, and with full approval of the Holy See and the local bishops, the priests provide a full sacramental
life for the faithful administered according to the liturgical books of 1962.

I’m unsure of the point that you’re trying to make. My point is that they are not consecrated religious. Therefore, they don’t have the freedom that religious orders and religious congregations have.

Even when a religious order or a religious congregation is erected in a diocese, it maintains its autonomy from the local bishop. If the order or congregation has priests, the bishop grants faculties for those priests to hear the confessions of the faithful, preach in his parishes, and witness to weddings in his diocese. Aside from that, what they do is really in the hands of the Major Superior. They can come and go with much greater freedom than a clerical fraternity of apostolic life.

In the case of the FSSP, their Major Superiors answer to the Ecclesia Dei Commission and to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic LIfe. Religious orders of men are exempt from the authority of the local bishop, other than for faculties. For example, a bishop may not enter the house or chapels of exempt religious without the permission of the superior. He cannot strip a member of a religious order of either the clerical state or the vows. That has to be initiated by the superior. He cannot ordain any religious without the permission of the superior.

They answer to the Holy Father or any other authority whom he delegates. Religious Congregations answer to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. As was the example made very clear with the unfortunate Notre Dame situation. As upset as the bishops were, there was nothing that they could legally do to Fr. Jenkins. He’s an exempt religious serving in an institution that is also exempt from the control of the bishops.

These relationships must always be charitable and fair, in addition to cooperative. It does not always work that way. That’s the unfortunate part, but that’s the goal: fair, charitable and cooperative.

Because the FSSP are not consecrated religious, they are also more focussed on pastoral work than religious. This is actually a plus for any parish that they administer, because they don’t have to run out of the confessional for a community meal or community prayer. They don’t have to close down the parish for a week to attend a community retreat or community chapter. Societies of Apostolic Life don’t function this way. Their life revolves around the ministry, in this case, it’s priestly ministry. The life of a cosecrated religious revolves around the rule and constitutions of his community. The amount of time given to ministry and the type of ministry is going to be determined by those documents and it’s always going to be split with the common life to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the vision of the founder. This gives the religious greater freedom from ministry, because even if the religious is a priest, the apostolate is a part of his life. In the case of the FSSP, the apostolate is their vocation. They are less free to get away from it. I can’t imagine a priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter asking to be assigned to a soup kitchen or to work as the community cook or to become a hermit… These freedoms are available to the consecrated religious. If he and his superior feel that such a change is for the good, then it happens, because it’s not contrary to the charism of religious life. No bishop would question it. The bishop may be concerned, because it’s one less man in his diocese. These are some of the freedoms to which I refer.

Given these differences, there are going to be some things we can expect of one and not of the other. That was my point. No one is attacking the FSSP.

They also have to answer to their own Superior General and Vice Superior General.

This has never been in question

Now as far as the faithful wanting this change or that change to accomodate this wish or that, we have to realize that the Catholic Church is NOT a democracy and we dont elect our bishops as some other faiths do. I know that there are some outspoken and well known dissenters such the Benedictine nun Joan Chittister OSB who recently was a keynote speaker at a gathering of Catholic dissenters in Detroit even after being warned that their conference did not have permission from Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit and that any who attended and celebrated would be defrocked nevertheless the various goups such as the American Catholic Council and others were warned even a second time met anyway. These are people that believe in gay marriage woman priests and pro abortion and many other left wing secular progressive movements that in their view the Church should accomodate. Not gonna happen. We dont demand from the Church. We follow its teachings and adjust our beliefs accordingly. The Church will change as the Holy Father and its leaders in Rome guided by the Holy Spirit see fit to
change it , this is the way it has been since the beginning and the way it will be till the end.
Blessings and Peace

What does the above have to do with the subject that we’re discussing?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[yosupman]

I believe that part of the frustration that people who love the EF feel is legitimate.

I see the following as legitimate wishes and desires.

• to have one close by so they don’t have to drive two hours.
• to see the bishops agree more readily to the EF.
• to know that they are thought of as Catholics, not as dissidents.
• to see more priests learn the EF and want to celebrate the EF.

However, there are also some unreasonable wishes or desires.

Wanting to see the EF promoted. That was not part of SP or UE. There seems to be a belief on the part of some people that we have a duty to promote the EF. However, this begs the question. Promote the EF to do away with the OF? If that’s the meaning of promote, that is an unreasonable desire, because it is not what the Holy Father said. To inform people that it’s permissible, is legitimate and to publish places and times where people can attend.

Some want religious superiors to allow regular priests to celebrate the EF for congregations and become angry when superiors say that they will not do this or cannot do this. A request is reasonable. To demand that religious superiors provide certain services, be it a form of the mass or some other service, is unreasonable, because it’s interference with the internal life of a religious community.

People have suggested that the laity withhold financial support from dioceses and religious orders. First, that’s a form of blackmail, which is immoral. Second, to ensure that this did not happen, Trent created was is called the Exempt Religious. Those are male religious who are free of influence from the laity and bishops; but once they are in a diocese, they must be financially supported by the laity of that diocese. That law has never been revoked. It’s still in Canon Law.

Other people want to change practices and rules that are outside of the mass, to reflect those that were in place prior to Vatican II, such as veiling, longer fast before communion, the return of sisters to Catholic Schools, and the regression of religious communities to the days when they were out of compliance with their founders. This is not a reasonable wish. SP and UE speak only to the rite itself, not about the canons passed in 1983, nor about the duty of religious to return to their origins. To wish for religious who were out of compliance with their founders, because it meets out needs, is unreasonable. If there is a genuine need for religious to function in a certain ministry, then lay people who are single need to unite to form new communities, but don’t make the older communities live and work in a manner contrary to their founders’ wishes. Things like veiling and a longer fast before Holy Communion are a personal choice and no one should try to influence another person one way or the other, because it is not forbidden, nor expected.

Finally, there is a small group that wants bishops and religious superiors to command priests to learn and celebrate the EF. That’s not reasonable. It would be, if the Tridentine form were the ordinary form. However, bishops and religious superiors cannot command that which is extraordinary. That’s why the Holy Father carefully chose this term. In Church law, the term means that which is not the norm, such as EMHC. It’s something that you have permission to do, but you don’t have to do it. You can’t command what is deemed as extraordinary by the law.

The thing to do is to work to build up these stable groups required by SP and UE and present the request to the pastor. Depending on who runs your parish, you may have to deal with a bishop or a religious superior. If your parish is run by religious, you must wait for the superior to respond. If the respond is negative, then you can apply to the bishop to see if he can find a priest who wants to do it, because the bishop cannot overrule the superior. He may be able to find a priest who can help. If you don’t get the help that you need from the diocese, then you apply to Ecclesia Dei for help. But keep in mind, that even Ecclesia Dei has a limited pool of priests who want to celebrate the EF and it does not have the authority to demand that any priest do it. The Holy Father wants the younger priests to be exposed to the EF. He did not say that he wants them to celebrate it. That’s up to them or their superiors, if they’re religious.

Also, be careful how you view the FSSP. The FSSP is a very holy society. Some people are viewing them as if they were consecrated men. They are not. They are secular priests. As secular priests, they work cooperatively with the local bishop. They’re not religious. Therefore, they don’t have the freedom that religious communities have. Sometimes, I feel badly because people place expectations of them that they cannot fulfill. They’re really great guys who should not be put on the spot.

Those are just my 2¢

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The problem with the Fraternity of St. Peter is that a lot of the priests there have completely pre-vatican II mentality. Most of the priests frown upon NFP, almost in any circumstance. The people that attend the FSSP masses frown upon a women wearing pants, or working at all. If I followed the advice of the FSSP I’d be completely in debt, living in a small cramped apartment, and my wife would be suicidal. The FSSP is not for me!

 

[pataburd]

The problem with the Fraternity of St. Peter is that a lot of the priests there have completely pre-vatican II mentality. Most of the priests frown upon NFP, almost in any circumstance. The people that attend the FSSP masses frown upon a women wearing pants, or working at all. If I followed the advice of the FSSP I’d be completely in debt, living in a small cramped apartment, and my wife would be suicidal. The FSSP is not for me!

yosupman,

I really would like to understand precisely what you mean by “pre-vatican II mentality”.
: )

Cordially,
PAB

 

[yosupman]

yosupman,

I really would like to understand precisely what you mean by “pre-vatican II mentality”.
: )

Cordially,
PAB

PAB - I am a very orthodox Catholic. I love the TLM, and also the novus ordo. I really should have said SSPX mentality. Basically exclusionary. If my wife doesn’t dress in a “little house on the prairie” dress, and I don’t have 9 kids, then we won’t fit in.