Saturday, July 19, 2008

SOS to PCED

By Brian Kopp

· · · — — — · · · SOS to PCED · · · — — — · · ·

So, when can we anticipate the publication of the "clarification" from PCED on Summorum Pontificum?

Priests are desperately waiting for this "clarification," especially in those dioceses in which the "little tittle rules" set up by their local ordinary to undermine Summorum Pontificum have put a concrete stop to all efforts to establish a public celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass (i.e., Gregorian Rite Mass.)

Recently, a courageous priest came forward and submitted himself to the "little tittle rules" set up by the local ordinary here, only to be told he had passed the rubrics/Mass part of the exam, but failed an intensive (punitive?) Latin exam.

The local ordinary gloated at a recent presbyteral council meeting that the TLM is not being celebrated in this diocese -- since no one has passed the exams.

I wrote to the PCED in early December, 2007, about the "little tittle rules" set up by the local ordinary:

His Eminence Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos
President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei"
Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio
00120 VATICAN CITY

His Eminence Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos:

Enclosed please find a copy of the "Bishop's Clergy Bulletin" for September-October 2007 from the Most Rev. Joseph V. Adamec, D.D., S.T.L., Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, 126 Logan Boulevard, Hollidaysburg, PA 16648.

In this document, Bishop Adamec states:

THE TRIDENTINE MASS

I presume that the Tridentine Mass is not being celebrated within our Diocesan Church. I make that presumption, knowing that no priest has made a request to our Liturgy Office. You will recall that such is required in order to obtain an acknowledgment of his having the appropriate skills for celebrating according to those particular rubrics. This would include private celebrations. (I refer you to the guidelines that I issued earlier.)


Bishop Adamec refers to "guidelines" that he issued earlier this fall regarding the traditional Latin Mass (TLM). In these "guidelines" he states,

Should a pastor decide to celebrate or allow the celebration of one of the regularly scheduled Masses in a parish in accord with the extraordinary form (Missal of Blessed John X)(ffl), it must be in response to a request from a group (coetus/association) within his particular parish (member parishioners) that has existed and has been attached to the previous liturgical tradition steadfastly (that is: for some time; stabiliter existit). He may not do so as a result of his own personal preference. I ask that requests be presented to the pastor in writing, including names and addresses. These should be kept on file at the parish. In order to preserve unity within a parish, the Parish Pastoral Council is to be consulted in regard to any change. Groups composed of individuals belonging to various parishes are to approach the Diocesan Bishop.

... In order to assure that a priest has the rubrical and linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass within the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, acknowledgement of such is to be obtained from our Diocesan Office of Liturgy.


Cardinal Hoyos, could you answer these specific questions as they relate to Summorum Pontificum and our local bishop's additional rules regarding the TLM?

1) Are priests required to make a request to a diocesan Liturgy Office "in order to obtain an acknowledgment of his having the appropriate skills for celebrating according to those particular rubrics." If so, would such a requirement actually apply to "private celebrations"?
...

2) According to Summorum Pontificum, are priests permitted to offer the traditional Latin Mass on their own initiative, without a specific request from a group of laity?

3) Must such a group of laity exist solely within his parish, or may such a group be made up of laity outside the parish in question?

4) May the bishop insist that a group requesting a TLM be one "that has existed and has been attached to the previous liturgical tradition steadfastly"? How is such possible in a diocese such as ours, wherein the same bishop refused to permit the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass according to the 1988 indult?

5) Must the Parish Pastoral Council be consulted in regard to any such change? Or is the decision to offer the TLM at the sole discretion of the priest?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. We are desperate for concrete guidance and intervention from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to clarify these questions, in our local diocese and across America.

Thank you for your faithful witness and perseverance during this exciting yet difficult time for our Catholic Church, as well as your loyalty and obedience to our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

Please be assured of our prayers for you and the vital work of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Sincerely,

Dr. Brian Kopp

CC:
Most Rev. Joseph V. Adamec, D.D., S.T.L., Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown

Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments


It is obvious that many Catholics, including laymen, have received written responses to their letters to PCED, but to date, I have received no response to the letter above (though in his various public comments since December, Cardinal Hoyos has answered most of the questions in my letter.)

Now it is apparent that some bishops are actively applying their "little tittle rules" -- namely, intensive/punitive Latin exams that are impossible for average post-VII educated priests to pass -- to put up a concrete barrier to any attempt by faithful local diocesan priests to start celebrating public Gregorian Rite Masses.

Other local priests who know and yearn to offer Gregorian Rite Masses have told me they refuse to submit themselves to these "little tittle " exams that constitute such an obvious violation of the spirit and letter of Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum. They are desperately waiting for the publication of the "clarification" from PCED on Summorum Pontificum, assuming that these punitive "little tittle rules" and exams will be overturned by sensible universal rules regarding the application of Summorum Pontificum.

They are heartened by the words of Archbishop Ranjith and Cardinal Hoyos that seem to indicate that these local punitive rules will be made moot by the publication of the "clarification" from PCED on Summorum Pontificum.

But they are not going to stick their necks out over mere words. There must be a concrete document that gives them protection from these "little tittle rules" before they can implement Summorum Pontificum in their own parishes.

We've had "clarifications" that the new lectionary can be imposed upon the Gregorian Rite Mass and that the readings can be done in the vernacular, that the Novus Ordo observance of Holy Days of Obligation can be imposed on the old calendar, we've heard opinions that the discipline of kneeling to receive Holy Communion on the tongue cannot be enforced in celebrations of the Gregorian Rite Mass, and we've had the whole "Good Friday Prayer" fiasco.

So, why is the anticipated PCED clarification of Summorum Pontificum being delayed so long, while the enforcement of these "little tittle rules" becomes more entrenched?

Post Script:

To clarify, here are some of Archbishop Ranjith's words regarding these "little tittle rules":


It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Father says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.


There have been positive reactions and, it is useless to deny it, criticisms and opposition , even from theologians, liturgists, priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals. I frankly do not understand these rifts, and, why not [say it], rebellion towards the Pope. I invite all, particularly the Shepherds, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. The Bishops, in particular, have sworn fidelity to the Pontiff: may they be coherent and faithful to their commitment.

...You know that there have been, by some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplainably intend to limit the Pope's Motu Proprio. These actions mask behind them, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I invite all to obey the Pope. If the Holy father decided to promulgate the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons, which I fully share.

...The Tridentine Rite is part of the tradition of the Church. The Pope has dutifully explained the motives for his measure, an act of liberty and justice towards Traditionalists. As for Latin, I wish to underline that it has never been abolished and, what is more, it guarantees the universality of the Church. But I repeat: I invite priests, Bishops, and Cardinals to obedience, setting aside every kind of pride and prejudice.


Cardinal Hoyos has stated,

"priests can decide, without permission from the Holy See or the bishop, to celebrate the Mass in the ancient rite. And this holds true for all priests…It is not therefore necessary to ask any other permission...The Code of Canon Law says who must give permission to say Mass and it is not the bishop: The bishop gives the "celebret," the power to be able to celebrate [i.e., both the old and new forms of the rite], but when a priest has this power, it is the parish priest and the chaplain who must grant the altar to celebrate. If anyone impedes him, it is up to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in the name of the Holy Father, to take measures until this right is respected…The Pope does not impose the obligation; the Pope does impose offering this possibility where the faithful request it. If there is a conflict, the authority of the bishop must intervene to avoid it, but without canceling the right that the Pope gave to the entire Church.”


Asked whether the Latin Mass would be celebrated in many ordinary parishes in future, Cardinal Castrillon said:Not many parishes – all parishes. The Holy Father is offering this not only for the few groups who demand it, but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist.”


“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"...

The cardinal said that parishes and priests should make available the Extraordinary Form so that everyone may have access to this treasure of the ancient liturgy of the Church.” He also stressed that, even if it is not specifically asked for, or requested it should be provided. ...so that “young communities can also become familiar with this rite.”


Good words. Strong words. Refreshing words.

But empty words, until the PCED publishes a clarification that overturns and repudiates these punitive "little tittle" local rules under which many diocesan priests still suffer, and under which, even with Summorum Pontificum, they are left without recourse.

60 comments:

Patrick Archbold said...

Dot Dot Dot
Dash Dash Dash
It's time for the PCED to kick some ...

Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Koop:

What you report is outrageous. Adamec has always been one of our worst enemies: he will not desist. He was the one who stacked his seminary with misfits and used psychological testing to keep out good priests.

As you probably know, there is a priest in his Diocese who is continuing to celebrate the old Mass on an every-Sunday basis. I pray that he will simply ignore this miscreant and continue on. If Adamec would like to try to stop him, let Ademec take legal action before a diocesan tribunal. I hope that Adamec would win so that the celebrant could appeal to the Apostolic Signatura. It is time to put this bad man in his place.

I note that, even if Adamec's process were legal, WHICH IT IS NOT, it could not possibly apply to 'private Masses' (a misnomer). If this fool could even read, he would note that the restrictions mentioned in Article 5 can only apply to that Article and those which follow it, unless there is a statement applying it to earlier sections. The Section in regard to being 'qualified' (Section 4 of Article 5) does not apply to Articles 2 and 4 regarding not-regularly-scheduled Masses with invited guests.

This man is a moron. He will be 73 in a few days. We should not have to wait another two years to be rid of him.

Peter Karl T. Perkins

Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Koop:

I don't expect your answers to be received soon. I put a longer and more detailed set to the P.C.E.D. last August. I have still not received a reply. They must be deluged with letters for clarification. Let us pray for a general statement of clarification.

Sincerely,

Peter Karl T. Perkins

Anonymous said...

Dr. Kopp:

Please e-mail me privately and inform me if the priest who failed the exam was the one who is currently celebrating the old Mass in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. We both know who I mean. If not, I can send you the name of the celebrant.

The priest who came forward made a major mistake. He should have done nothing and said nothing. Adamec's rules are ultra vires and therefore have no force in law; they are illegal. Celebrants should simply ignore them. Let Adamec himself take action against them. He is 73 years old and is now entering the 'lame duck' period. It would take two years just for the case to get to the Apostolic Signatura, and we'd win it. During that time, the action which is the subject of the dispute could continue, but no disciplinary action from Adamec would have legal force.

P.K.T.P.

e-mail address:

pkperkins@telus.net

Anonymous said...

As a supplementary comment, I wish to point out another problem which the Motu Proprio in itself has not solved to date: in some dioceses, especially small ones, there may be just one or even no priests willing and able to say the traditional Mass. At the same time, many bishops - even in some dioceses with huge demands for the traditional Mass - are unwilling to let in the FSSP, ICRSP, IBP and other priestly societies, even if they get the chance and actually have a shortage of priests. What needs to be clarified here is the part of the MP which requests the bishop to fulfill a demand from the faithful that has been turned down by the rector of a parish, in whole or in part, and to seek the council of the PCED if he can't do so by himself. This is the case, actually, in our diocese; but the bishop has done nothing and the result is a monthly mass at the most inconvenient time possible, celebrated by a priest who wish to keep this at a minimum (in spite of many faithful coming). One has to realise that after 40 years of liberalism, some dioceses don't have any priests left who will or can celebrate the traditional Mass. The key point here is to make access to this Mass a right, at least one place in every diocese and/or given a sustainable community requesting it. In fact, this is what Cardinal Hoyos seems to have said at several occassions lately; but it is not a right in practice, as long as it depends on the degree to which the local clergy is opposed to Tradition.
In fact, the apartheid we have experienced will not cease until traditional priestly societies are given the right to establish missions where they are most needed, or at least to act on the part of the MP which gives a theoretical right of the faithful to have the Mass through the intervention of the PCED.

Anonymous said...

I would like to congratulate the last poster. His analysis is superb. I have done a close reading of the motu proprio over these months. One much better than that of such people as Fr. Zuhlsdorf, I dare say. (So much for pride.)

My view is that, ultimately, the motu proprio extends the right of access to the old Mass from diocesan bishops to (1) parish priests and rectors of non-parochial churches and (2) retired priests (they are our secret weapon: no, they can't be stopped by the bishop). Other priests can also celebrate privately, but any active priest may be stopped by a duty to celebrate the New Mass and then not allowed to celebrate more than once a day. Technically, the m.p. only confers an absolute right to celebrate the T.L.M. to retired priests. But it is very difficult under the m.p. to stop a determined parish priest.

However, as our poster says, what happens if there is no priest who is 'willing and able'? Do the faithful have a right of access to the old Mass? The answer is negative. S.P. does give the faithful a right of legal process whereby their requests must be considered honestly. But that is all. Ultimately, they do not have a sure right of access. The bishop could intimidate his priests so that they don't volunteer to celebrate the old Mass, and then simply refuse to allow a traditionalist society (e.g. the F.S.S.P.) to say Mass in his see.

Technically, this is because nobody has a sure right of access to ANY Mass, even the N.O. Suppose that I lived in a small community in the North-West Territories. There is no Mass there. I contact my bishop and ask for one. He may wish to help but not have the manpower for this.

It is true that access to the old Mass is more restrictive. That is because the New Mass is normative in most jurisdictions. A priest cannot tell his bishop that he is not willing or not able to celebrate the New Mass!

The only way to get around this problem is to create one or more 'personal' jurisdiction(s) in which the F.S.S.P., I.C.R., I.B.P., T.A.R., and others can work under their own bishop. They or their bishop could approach the local bishop to ask him for use of his property, but they would not need that permission to offer Mass in the territory of that diocese. They could raise money locally to build their own parishes.

The best form is a single exempt international and 'personal' apostolic administration or diocese.

To say that it is exempt means that it is not part of any ecclesiastical province or bishops' conference: it is directly subject to the Holy See. It can be divided into vicariates, each headed either by an auxiliary bishop or a simple priest.

To say that it is international means that it exists in many nations. It might be excluded by some by way of exception, such as the territory of the See of Rome (for symbolic reasons), and countries where the terms of concordats might forbid it. My understanding is that concordats are currently being corrected so as to overcome this problem in a few cases. There also might be a cases in which the Pope may exclude it for other political reasons. We really don't need the T.L.M. in Afghanistan; instead, we need to appoint Cardinal Kasper, armed only with the Dutch Catechism, to be commissioned to convert the Taliban there. (I can just imagine his head turning over and over in the air after being lopped off by a scimitar. Bad. bad boy. Stop! Stop it! Go to confession. Now.)

To say that it is 'personal' means that its subjects are those who register in its parishes and missions. Others living in those areas can still go there to fulfil the Sunday obligation, confess their sins, and receive Extreme Unction. Only subjects may go there for Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Ordination, and burial--unless they have special permission from their bishops.

An apostolic administration is a provisional diocese. It is equivalent to a diocese in law unless restricted in its constitutions (the Campos one is not restricted and is equal to a diocese). It is headed by a prelate who may be a titular bishop or a simple priest.

Better than this would be a diocese, in which the prelate must be a diocesan bishop. But the a.a. structure is designed in the expectation that it will become a diocese should all go well.

Dioceses and other 'particular churches' need not be territorial. They can be established for "the rite of the faithful or some other similar quality" (Canon 372.2).

We need a Campos writ large. We now have a legal precedent: the Campos a.a. The problem is that it is restricted to the territory of one of 226 Latin sees in Brazil, which is only one of some 200 countries. That's a very small cage for tweety. We need the same type of cage but without the bars.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

While the motivations of this Bishop are suspect, no priest should be allowed to celebrate the True Mass without a detailed and working knowledge of Latin. Latin is the language of the Church and the Mass. What a shame so many priests have spent their valuable time learning various local languages at the expense of learning the very language of their own faith and that of the One, True Mass..

Brian Kopp said...

Anonymous said: no priest should be allowed to celebrate the True Mass without a detailed and working knowledge of Latin

How many post-VII educated priests have "a detailed and working knowledge of Latin"? Very few. Which is very convenient for those who would like to undermine Summorum Pontificum. Fortunately, our pope knows this, and therefore does not require any such "detailed and working knowledge of Latin."

As Cardinal Egan has stated, Priests who choose to celebrate Mass in the "extraordinary" form must have a sufficient knowledge of the Latin language to pronounce the words correctly.

To which Fr. Z. noted, "Excellent. The priest does not have to be an expert Latinist. He must have sufficient knowledge to pronounce the words. That is what idoneus is all about: it is minimum qualification, not expertise.

See http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/08/his-eminence-card-egan-archbp-of-new-york-on-the-motu-proprio/

Anonymous said...

On the last comment:

Whatever "should" be the case, in law, every priest, once ordained, has a fundamental right to celebrate in Latin, whether using the 1962 Missal or the 1970 Missal. This is enshrined in Canon 928 and also in the universal ecclesiastical law, for Latin in the proper liturgical language, the lingua sacra, of the Latin individual Church. A Latin bishop can no more forbid a priest from celebrating in Latin than can a Coptic bishop forbid one of his priests from using Coptic instead of Arabic.

If priests have inadequate training in Latin, the fault lies with their bishops and their seminaries. Rome has made that abundantly clear.

Most priests before the Council did not have a great facility in Latin. Recent decisions from the P.C.E.D. suggest that they need only know (a) how to pronounce the words and (b) what is the general meaning of each prayer in the Ordinary (which they can memorise). As long as they know enough to form the requisite intent for each prayer, and can deliver the words well enough, that is adequate. God knows enough Latin to be able to understand them! The purpose of the Mass is not for the priest to edify himself, and he can achieve that before the Mass anyway. As for the people, they can read a translation.

As to the propers, the priest can read them in the vernacular before each Mass; and he may even read the lections in the vernacular during Mass. Not a problem.

P.K.T.P.

Brian Kopp said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Ione said...

I'm a church traditionalist and I am so tired of being treated like a pariah by the very men who are supposed to be guarding my faith. It is getting harder not to start attending a SSPX chapel.

Anonymous said...

The post-Vatican II changes to the Mass did not occur in a big-bang moment. The Mass was meddled with on an almost weekly basis even before the introduction of the Bogus Ordo (so I am told). Likewise, there seems to be no reason why the restoration of the Mass cannot be performed gradually and rationally. As a start, why not allow priests insufficiently learned in Latin to celebrate the Mass using the English translation that exists in every pre-Bugnini Missal?

David L Alexander said...

I know of a priest in that diocese who celebrates the TLM "privately" on a regular basis. He is one of several Benedictine monks out of St Vincent's in Latrobe who administer parishes in one part of the diocese, whose officials have been unsuccessful in stopping them. For those in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown who really want it, the Traditional Mass is available, if inconvenient at times.

Anonymous said...

After reading the comments and article, I have a few points to add. I'm sorry for the length of this but, please bear with me and don't react until you've read to the end. Most of you are much more literate and knowledgable about this subject than I but I believe I have something to offer to the discussion (in my poor way).
First some negatives ... the TLM is the "extraordinary form". It doesn't help (y)our cause to put down the Novus Ordo. Despite the problems in its coming about and the abuses to which some subjected it - when it is done reverently according to the rubrics, it is a liturgy coming out of the Magisterium, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (and therefore is of infinite value!) so it should be loved and accepted as such ... even the Holy Father said that despite its imperfections he has come to have an affection for it (as he reforms it.) And since the liturgy is part of Sacred Tradition it is part of the stream of Divine Revelation from God through His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, through His Church and therefore it is a teacher. We can learn a lot by prayerfully listening to its words. So, again, it does not help the cause by putting down the Novus Ordo or having a haughty attitude about the superiority of the TLM. It unneccessarily alienates and confuses people and is divisive. We don't need that.
Follow the model of St. Paul, who advised speaking "the TRUTH in LOVE", to correct patiently and not to be "harsh" in our criticism (That's tough when you are passionate about something so vital.) Bear the fruits of the Holy Ghost.
Having said that, and I hope you will think about it and take it in the spirit with which it is offered, I believe that it's very important for all to learn the Latin Mass. Latin being the official/universal language of the Church (and as someone wrote ... as the Mass, it should be learned before taking on the other specific ethnic languages), we should be familiar with it, schooled in it. Secondly, the TLM is a treasure of the Church, an important part of the Deposit of Faith, prayed by saints for over 400 years, and as liturgy - part of the stream of Divine Revelation in Sacred Tradition ... coming out of the Magisterium of the Church ... never abrogated, only unjustly suppressed. Thank God for Pope John Paul II who promoted its implementation in the Church, and Pope Benedict XVI who is making it more available and has made steps to insure that those prelates opposing its restoration are stripped of their authority in preventing good and holy priests from saying it. He is taking control.
Lastly, I had a conversation with someone (good holy practicing Catholic) about the TLM, kind of speaking about it ... not in a negative way, but in a qualifying way ... the next Sunday, by circumstances I attended that Mass and I saw her on the other side. It was unbelievably beautiful and I kind of had a breakthrough during it (I was intellectually accepting of it, for all the reasons and more mentioned above). It really came through, as I tried my best to keep up with all of the prayers of the Mass, reading on the Latin side. Now along with this experience, all of this was in a time of sickness for me and either a few days before this Mass or a few days afterwards, I was very sick all night and could barely sleep ... I kept trying to pray all night asking God to show me the real cause of this illness and what the best remedy for regaining my health would be ... I suffered a lot that night ... so I guess I was more open/vulnerable to His answer which came to me. It had nothing to do with the illness (as far as I could tell). But what He did speak to me about, in words and images, was the Traditional Latin Mass - a rebuke, a correction, a chastisement ... I can't tell you word for word what was said to me ... but I will tell you this (and I've been desiring to speak about this to the proper person or forum ) ... I have no doubt that this was God or His messenger communicating to me ... He IMPRESSED upon me just how important this Tridentine Latin Mass is ... IT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE ... and that it needs to be implemented widely, as widely as possible (and it goes without saying ... properly ... in training for the priest and in catechesis/preparation for the faithful ... this parenthesis is my words and thoughts) ... So keep up the good fight relying heavily on prayer, sacrifice, Divine Providence and the Truth, spoken in love! I am convinced this is what God wants. This is not about taste, this is not about jousting for human power out of pride. This is a lot bigger than all of that. This is about implementing the will of God (for our good and the good of the whole Church and the salvation of souls, the ultimate battle of good against evil, of the Holy One over the evil one). Period.
And His last words to me, or I'll say the last words I remember coming to me after those about the restoration of the TLM were
"... and the restoration of the Papacy."
Pray about that.

Anonymous said...

I don't think I conveyed very well, just how intense that night was, when in my sickness, I sought the Lord in prayer about its cause and proper remedy. When He responded to me not about my illness but stressing the importance of the Traditional Latin Mass, I am not joking or making this up ... It was INTENSE!
And very powerful ... that in words and images, He made it clear, how important this was and that it be widely implemented.
Thanks for letting me get this out.
I don't think I was explicitly told to share this message. I know that first of all it was for me, that I would be deeply impressed of its importance and have that rock solid conviction about the beauty, value and power of the Tridentine Latin Mass and proceed in light of it. I hope that by sharing this others may also come to the same conclusion and those already knowing this will be reinforced in their conviction ... confirming and encouraging the brethren. God bless you all.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Jerome said...

Bishop Adamec is only following papal requirements that require a proper knowledge of Latin before allowing anyone to do a 1962 Mass.

Blessed John XXIII, in 1962, indicated in a solemnly-proclaimed Apostolic Constitution, "Veterum sapientia," exactly what background priests must have in that language: 7-9 years of study in the classical and ecclesiastical authors.

Do we want to have ignorant priests badly mouthing a language of which they do not have the requisite knowledge demanded by that Blessed Pope. I think not.

Those who push for badly-prepared priests against the will of the Holy Father must question their own Catholicism.

David L Alexander said...

"Those who push for badly-prepared priests against the will of the Holy Father must question their own Catholicism."

And speaking of "badly-prepared..."

The papal decree specifies that the priest celebrating the Traditional Form need only be (here comes the incomprehensible Latin word) "idoneus," which means simply "capable" or "competent." This, as opposed to the ability to quote Cicero from memory.

It is true that priests once studied years of Latin before ordination. The requirement is also still a part of Canon Law. I'm dying to hear of Bishop Adamec's efforts toward his seminarians in that regard.

Meanwhile, I for one know what I could question.

David L Alexander said...

Daniel:

Articles like this...

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea1.asp

...were written for guys like you.

David L Alexander said...

No, wait, let's make that active, shall we?

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea1.asp

Brian Kopp said...

Fr. Jerome said: "Bishop Adamec is only following papal requirements that require a proper knowledge of Latin before allowing anyone to do a 1962 Mass.

You obviously missed my comment above, "Fr. Jerome":

How many post-VII educated priests have "a detailed and working knowledge of Latin"? Very few. Which is very convenient for those who would like to undermine Summorum Pontificum. Fortunately, our pope knows this, and therefore does not require any such "detailed and working knowledge of Latin."

As Cardinal Egan has stated, Priests who choose to celebrate Mass in the "extraordinary" form must have a sufficient knowledge of the Latin language to pronounce the words correctly.

To which Fr. Z. noted, "Excellent. The priest does not have to be an expert Latinist. He must have sufficient knowledge to pronounce the words. That is what idoneus is all about: it is minimum qualification, not expertise.

Stop living in the 1960's, and welcome to the post-SP era ;-)

Peter said...

Dear Peter Perkins et alia,

At the end of the day, why do you want a restoration of the Tridentine missal in Catholic parishes?

I honestly have no idea. I'm dumbfounded. I have no idea what it has to do with Jesus Christ, and so far nothing you and many of your associates have rankled over attracts me to your faith.

Jesus says, "Love your enemies," but Mr. Perkins has made clear that he hates a bishop. "Adamec has always been one of our worst enemies." Mr. Perkins refers to Bishop Adamec as a "miscreant," "fool," and a "moron" ... hardly loving words?

Apparently Mr. Perkins and others like-minded want a return to a Latin Liturgy, but apparently they cannot translate into their lives "Deus Caritas Est." It means "God is Love."

I ask you "where is the love?" because it is apparent that none is here. I have read that the old Romans used to say of the Christians, "Lo, how they love one another," even as they used Christians as fuel for Nero's torches.

So who is your Jesus Christ? Do you even care about him? Ever read what he says or does it make a difference? Or do the rules about "love one another as I have loved you" just go out the window when it comes to a holy cause like the "Traditional Latin Mass?"

What does Jesus Christ matter to you and your drive to restore your Mass? I have no idea. If Mr. Perkins is any measure of this movement, all I can see with universal acceptance of the TLM is every parish a whited sepulcher filled with baptized pagans.

David L Alexander said...

"At the end of the day, why do you want a restoration of the Tridentine missal in Catholic parishes?"

I could give you a common explanation, that it manifests the Truths of the Faith with more precision and clarity than the reformed missal (which is not the same as saying that the latter is false), or tell you of how it is a part of our heritage, our birthright, to which the Holy See has now determined that we as Christ's faithful are entitled.

But that wouldn't quite cut it, would it?

Many bishops have not acted in a manner consistent with the Holy Father on this matter. Bishop Adamec is on the record as one of them. The papal decree has spelled out terms which he has explained away or ignored entirely. It is possible for such people to mean well. It is also possible for such people to be mean about it.

If you want to judge the attitude toward his comments and his actions, I suggest you go to the source of those comments and actions.

Was Christ such a lovable guy when he took a whip of cords and cleared the temple? Does love mean being nice all the time? Does loving your enemies mean letting them do evil, or doing wrong to your Faith, your ability to raise your family in that Faith?

Go to the horse's mouth, then come back and tell us what a reasonable guy the good Bishop is. Until then...

Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

For Peter:

Where is the love you ask when a bishop is called out. Well there have been plenty of bad bishops over these years. Many of whom have (and some who are) sheltered homosexuals and even pedophiles among other crimes.

Many have decimated their dioceses. Bishop Adamec is infamous and his shenanigans are pretty well known. I would never ever consider living in his diocese although mine is also of the so called progressive bent. There is progressive and there is heterodox, is there not?

Yes, we must love our enemies and pray for them. This bishop needs our prayers.

Anonymous said...

Well I thought only the Archdiocese of Baltimore played these games, but I see we are not alone.

Bishop O'Brien has never even addressed our requests for the Tridentine Mass in Frederick county Maryland. He passed the responsibility down to his assistant, Monsignor Robert Jaskot.

Monsignor Jaskot spins his words to make it look like he is concerned for our request, but does next to nothing to address it. He continually finds excuses such as being busy, the bishop is new, and he has to convene a committee to see how the Latin mass is going to be implemented. It is now a year since our request and Monsignor Jaskot tells us that he won't be able to get to it until this coming autumn.

What is there to decide to implement. We want a Sunday mass and holy days of obligation. It seems simple enought. What it appears is that he wants his committee to come up with set of impossible criteria to meet. We are on to you Monsignor Jaskot. Shame on you for your deceptive tactics. You will have to answer for this deception and trickery before the Lord someday. If you are sincere, then do it.
I think all these readers should know that we have several priests who were trained prior to 1969 who are capable and willing to say the mass but they are afraid to it for fear of reprisal from the diocese. They will only do it with bishops blessing. Isn't that a disgrace that they fear to celebrate the mass! Please pray for the archdiocese of Baltimore. May God have mercy on them.

A Deacon said...

I do not expect you to get an answer, especially one in your favor. If you do, you really do not understand church government. Read the Code of Canon Law, esp.Canons #381 to 402. The Diocesan Church is THE BISHOP'S responsibility, not yours.

If the pope chooses to intervene,so be it. That HIS choice, responsibility, and privilege. In the mean time, WHO ARE YOU to undermine your bishops, your dioceses, and your church, just because you may not agree or something does not go along with your agenda?

Instead of wasting your time posting here, why don't you all just power off your PC's for a while, get up, go out, and serve someone in need? For starters, I am sure all your parishes have shut-ins and the sick that need visitation or elderly that need help just getting to church. Use your imagination, there is a lot of work that needs to be done!

A Deacon said...

I am sorry, Just one more point...

David L. Alexander wrote:

"I could give you a common explanation, that it manifests the Truths of the Faith with more precision and clarity than the reformed missal (which is not the same as saying that the latter is false), or tell you of how it is a part of our heritage, our birthright..."

Oh Really? And just how can it "manifest the Truths of the Faith with more precision" if the vast majority of people cannot understand what is being spoken??

You should brush up on your Church History. The Council of Trent was in the the 16th century. And just how did the Church handle this for the ONE THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED YEARS before that??

David L Alexander said...

"If the pope chooses to intervene,so be it. That HIS choice, responsibility, and privilege. In the mean time, WHO ARE YOU to undermine your bishops, your dioceses, and your church, just because you may not agree or something does not go along with your agenda?"

Given the precise wording of the decree in question, just who the hell do we HAVE to be? And given the above, are those whose petitions are unheard doing the undermining? Further, wouldn't this be the Holy Father's agenda?

Now.... who are you???

David L Alexander said...

"And just how did the Church handle this for the ONE THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED YEARS before that??"

Well, since you've asked...

The traditional Roman Rite, as a distinct liturgical form, is considered to have developed as early as the fifth century, and was codified by Pope Gregory. Numerous alterations were made over the years, in a continuous line of organic development. It was only at the Council of Trent that the Missal in common use in the Diocese of Rome and surrounding dioceses, became the common usage of the Western church, with exceptions given to various religious orders and regions whose rites had been in constant use for at least two centuries. And even then, all of them used the Roman Canon.

That's the short answer, but that's how we got along. A bibliography can be provided upon request. It will give you a chance to "brush up on your Church History."

As to the ability to express the Faith with more precision, we pray what we believe, and when what we believe is clear, then how we pray to God is clear. In the Old Testament, the Almighty was shown to be no less particular about liturgical detail (while being prayed to in Hebrew, which was not the vernacular language, as was Aramaic). Otherwise, if the Church were little more than a social service agency, we could all just "get up, go out, and serve someone in need" without having to be insulted by some guy who obviously didn't do his homework.

And who hasn't the slightest idea what we're doing when not so occupied.

A Deacon said...

Hey David, I am sorry if I touched a nerve.

You wrote:

"Given the precise wording of the decree in question, just who the hell do we HAVE to be?"

Well, that is not hard. We are called to live our faith and bear witness to it in the world around us.

"And given the above, are those whose petitions are unheard doing the undermining? Further, wouldn't this be the Holy Father's agenda?"

I will let the Holy Father handle it, if he chooses to. I will also abide by his decision. That is not my responsibility and neither is it yours.

"Now.... who are you???"
I am a Deacon who is trying his best to live out the faith.

"A bibliography can be provided upon request."

I see you have "copy and paste" down pat. Thanks for the offer Dave. However, I can see that my resources are better than yours.

"...if the Church were little more than a social service agency, we could all just "get up, go out, and serve someone in need" without having to be insulted by some guy who obviously didn't do his homework."

Oh Wow, just wow. Dave, instead of ranting and flaming here, perhaps you should take some time and read the Gospels.

David L Alexander said...

Deacon:

This forum was established for those who are devoted to the Traditional Mass. All are welcome, including yourself. Those who would hold a view contrary to such adherents, and would challenge them without basis when called upon, and ridicule them in matters aside from the issue at hand (like that "cut and paste" remark, among others) would be more likely to be characterized as "ranting and flaming," than one of the contributing editors of the site, who does NOT hold a contrarian view, and who DOES make his case.

In the motu proprio, the Holy Father gives the faithful the unrestricted use of the Traditional Mass. That is how he is "handling" it, and those who approach their pastor with this request, are doing so in concert with that wish. That is well within their "responsibility." He has said so. It is verifiable. It is on record. It is fact.

The gospels tell us of Christ's inquiry, as to whether his disciples would give bread or stones to feed the hungry. It is a fitting commentary on how some of the faithful are being treated by their shepherds, and the Holy Father's representatives have said as much.

This you already know, given how your resources are an equal to mine. Too bad you haven't proven it here.

Peter said...

Dear Mr. Alexander et alia,

Well, QED for the faith Mr. Alexander professes! A persuasive ability to represent the truth in a fashion to make simple saints blush. So in the words of Peter the Apostle: "parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos rationem de ea, quæ in vobis est, spe."

Now I'm afraid that quotation may require for the average layman who does not know Latin, a little more "clarity and precision." The verse is 1 Peter 3:15, translated from the Greek by St. Jerome. I must confess that for the average Joe who does not know Christ, Mr. Alexander does not seem willing to provide a translation at all! All I asked was for Mr. Alexander to give a reason for the hope that is within him and that would "cut it" very well.

However Mr. Alexander has shown me that the movement to which he and Mr. Perkins represent is more "cutting" than Christian. Apparently Mr. Alexander wants me to concur that the appellation of "moron", "miscreant," and "fool" - I have no idea as to his position on the term "modernist scum" so articulated by one gentle anonymous - is exactly what Jesus Christ his Savior had in mind on the Sermon of the Mount and what he means by "love your enemies, do good to those that persecute you." Now, he applies this raison d'etre to a bishop, which the Catholic Church says is a descendant of the Apostles themselves. So if a bishop can be called a moron, miscreant, fool, etc. does this mean I can extend the same act of charity toward non-ecclesiastics? The great unwashed? Is this the City of God? Do they do the same thing in Heaven, now I'm curious?

After asking me whether Jesus was a "lovable guy" driving out the money changers in the Temple, Mr. Alexander proceeds: "Does love mean being nice all the time? Does loving your enemies mean letting them do evil, or doing wrong to your Faith, your ability to raise your family in that Faith?"

It seems much of the fault has to do with God on this one, because the Deity certainly lets his enemies run around doing quite a bit of evil in the world and doing wrong to Mr. Alexander's faith. Had God intervened old Adam and Eve wouldn't have landed the entire human race in what the Church calls original sin, eh? No Satan, no serpent, no sin! No choice between good and evil.

None of my statements ever bore on the question of whether this Bishop Adamec was justified or not - the matter frankly does not concern me. Augustine says the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops, and I doubt very much today is different from then. I had only a question as to how Bishop Adamec happened to forfeit his human dignity as both a man and a bishop, and I wanted to know what your faith could teach me. I read that even Jesus lovingly washed the feet of Judas with full knowledge he was going to betray him. I wondered what he must have felt, but from your example I will assume "moron, fool, miscreant" etc. You have taught me this is how Jesus loves, because you say you are his followers.

Clearly Love is not acting and actively desiring the greatest good for another. So what God is by Mr. Alexander's reckoning I have no idea anymore. What Mr. Alexander's faith means for him and his family I have no competence to judge, but I have no reason to assume that it has anything to do with imitating Jesus Christ in the Gospels. I am not convinced the early Christian martyrs would have lashed out at their persecutors in the way that Messrs. Alexander and Perkins condone. I rather thought the martyrs reaction was quite impressive ... so why should the rules change when it comes to bad bishops?

In short, what is this liturgy worth if you do not have Love? Paul would say, "nothing", but apparently he would get asked whether Jesus was a "lovable guy" or what does "niceness" have to do with it. Niceness nothing - that vile word comes from the Latin "nescio" and for the longest time had its derivative connotation of "stupid" - but love is not a mere quality or passion, it is an act! I can love you and take you to task for your view; it is quite another thing for me to abuse verbally your dignity as a human being in doing so. So when Messrs. Alexander, Perkins, et alia can show the world that they can "love their persecutors, do good to those that hate them," they will win people of good will such as me over to their point of view. Until then I reject the notion that the callous deprecation of a human being "created in the image of God" through words such as "fool," "miscreant," and "moron" constitutes a charitable deed. Put that on lampstand, and I guarantee you it will shine no more brilliantly than the howling dark.

Anonymous said...

I am a Catholic who has never been exposed to the Latin Mass but am open to it. I would consider myself a traditionalist.

If a person becomes disobedient to the Pope trying to be more Catholic than the Pope, then what? If an injustice is being carried out, Our Lord has allowed it.

And if you believe that the Latin Mass is the one true Mass then how can you be Catholic? That's not the teaching of the Church. You've become a Protestant with your own magisterium...

Anonymous said...

Since some people are unkindly (and possibly unjustly) naming names... I would like to go on record saying that Archbishop O'Brien is clearly a wonderful Bishop for Baltimore. He has already done so much for vocations and the cause of the unborn. I predict that time will show that he is remembered as a great man and spiritual leader. He has only just begun... He is not an enemy of those who want orthodoxy in the Catholic church!

Anonymous said...

Every discussion on TLM on any board or group always degrades into who's holier, who's more loyal to the Pope/Magisterium. It's disgraceful and is usually based upon a general ignorance of the issue. The TLM forces the question of authenticity that many cannot fathom, bishops included. Educate yourselves on the true crux of the subject by reading "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber" and "Iota Unum" and then reasonably opine. The "spirit of Vatican II" is dying a dishonorable death as is evidenced by bishops like Joe Adamec.

David L Alexander said...

"Every discussion on TLM on any board or group always degrades into who's holier, who's more loyal to the Pope/Magisterium. It's disgraceful and is usually based upon a general ignorance of the issue."

Ah, indeed. And there is a cure for that ignorance, if only in this case.

Read the motu proprio!!!!

If you read it, you'll be able to base your statements, right or wrong, on the issue itself, as opposed to the usual attacks about someone being "more Catholic than the Pope," without ever establishing whether that is the least bit relevant. It's a major leap for some people, to be sure, but it might help others to understand.

Starting with whoever goes out on a limb and reads it. (Go ahead. Click on the link. You know you want to...)

David L Alexander said...

"And if you believe that the Latin Mass is the one true Mass then how can you be Catholic?"

Very good question. No one here has expressed such a belief, have they?

A Deacon said...

David L Alexander wrote:

"This forum was established for those who are devoted to the Traditional Mass."

Discussing and learning about the "traditional Mass" is one thing, but demeaning and ridiculing Bishops is just a bit outside that scope, don't you think?

“And there is a cure for that ignorance, if only in this case. Read the motu proprio!!!”

You should take your own advice and read it yourself again, carefully and with an unbiased eye. Based on this blog and many of these comments, here are some points from it I respectfully suggest you reflect on...

It was written to and intended for "My Dear Brother Bishops," not to the Faithful at large.

“The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.

“It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition.”

“In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese.”

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.”

The whole point of the motu proprio was to reconcile and unify, not to build up someone's agenda. Pray for and support your Bishops and Priests. You are treading on thin ice when you tear them down just because you may not agree with them.

Brian Kopp said...

"No one here has expressed such a belief, have they?"

Really, now. My family attends the Novus Ordo 6 days a week. On Sunday, we do whatever we have to do in order to attend a Traditional Latin Mass.

This is typical of most of the Catholics I know who attend the Sunday TLM I attend.

So why the acrimony, why so many straw men arguments?

Brian Kopp said...

Dear "A Deacon"

Your broad criticisms would apply equally to the mean, irresponsible words of Archbishop Ranjith regarding these same disobedient bishops.

You need to read his comments more carefully:

It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Father says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.



There have been positive reactions and, it is useless to deny it, criticisms and opposition , even from theologians, liturgists, priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals. I frankly do not understand these rifts, and, why not [say it], rebellion towards the Pope. I invite all, particularly the Shepherds, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. The Bishops, in particular, have sworn fidelity to the Pontiff: may they be coherent and faithful to their commitment.

...You know that there have been, by some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplainably intend to limit the Pope's Motu Proprio. These actions mask behind them, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I invite all to obey the Pope. If the Holy father decided to promulgate the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons, which I fully share.

...The Tridentine Rite is part of the tradition of the Church. The Pope has dutifully explained the motives for his measure, an act of liberty and justice towards Traditionalists. As for Latin, I wish to underline that it has never been abolished and, what is more, it guarantees the universality of the Church. But I repeat: I invite priests, Bishops, and Cardinals to obedience, setting aside every kind of pride and prejudice.

David L Alexander said...

Deacon:

I have sufficient command of the text of the motu proprio, as well as problems common to the translation. And while it was addressed to the bishops themselves, it was disseminated on the internet from the Vatican website, in several languages, for all to read. This would include the faithful, who have a right to respectfully redress their grievances to their bishops. Their bishops, in turn, have been instructed as to how they are to respond.

I am unsubscribing from this conversation. Your frequent attacks on other commenters, in matters beyond the issue, are not worth the trouble it takes to respond. I am always available by private correspondence, so I am not closing the door. I am merely closing it here.

To others who view this, read the motu proprio. Base your comments on that reading. Avoid calling any bishop names, even if he appears to have earned them. I also invite you to read the article by Father Johansen that I have linked here.

My work is done. For the moment.

CK said...

Technically, this is because nobody has a sure right of access to ANY Mass, even the N.O. Suppose that I lived in a small community in the North-West Territories. There is no Mass there. I contact my bishop and ask for one. He may wish to help but not have the manpower for this.

What a distant satellite to the discussion at hand in cases where things ARE available but suppressed. And the Holy Father in his generous wisdom doesn't want little established clubs, distinct and separate from one another within a diocese in order to continue the general status quo. He wants the availability of the entire richness of our faith to be easily accessible for all and to create an influence for good - the great evangelization, not the puny narcissistic one we've been getting.

and deacon: Instead of wasting your time posting here, why don't you all just power off your PC's for a while, get up, go out, and serve someone in need? For starters, I am sure all your parishes have shut-ins and the sick that need visitation or elderly that need help just getting to church.

First of all, off topic! And the rest is more from the social action "holier than thou" types.

More deacon: I will let the Holy Father handle it, if he chooses to.

And you're a deacon now with that old attitude? The Holy Father has already given you permission (since you seem the type who needs explicit concrete direction on the liturgical side of your faith) with this generous offering. He has even found it necessary to repeat his intentions through his ministers, again explaining that expected generosity due to those who continue to use age old (4-5 decades old that is) excuses for not following that Spirit. So be brave and speak up yourself in following that lead for your own diocese's correction if need be.

Re: this sudden new ideal of "preparation" for only this particular expression of our Faith in the liturgy.....when our replacement pastor was new a priest friend who knew him warned us to not be late for his mass. You see he mutters and slurs the words to get finished in 15 minutes. The other weekend visitor extends the mass to accommodate his laboriously expressed inserts of his own feelings, here and there, with no clue to the uncomfortable and growing impatient rocking of the congregation. So, what a joke it is to hear the worn out excuses of "limited preparation" in the classical expression. Say the words and allow the Holy Spirit to move within the setting of greater respect and desire of the heart. You may be shocked that that is what so many did when Latin was the "ordinary"!

An anonymous: One has to realise that after 40 years of liberalism, some dioceses don't have any priests left who will or can celebrate the traditional Mass.

But that's the point. With more folks requesting their rights, there is finally an emphasis to learn something "new". Why is the "power of the laity" only been recognized when it comes to pushing themselves upon the "stage", encroaching more and more upon the separate priesthood? Now the laity is offered opportunities to come with weapon in hand, MP, and "educate" the stubborn but also disobedient.

Anonymous said...

I would be curious to know who in the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown administers the test. I wonder how the administer would score if subjected to his own test?

Ubipetros

David L Alexander said...

Okay, I'm back, but only to answer Ubipetros.

Perhaps the examinations would be conducted by the Bishop himself. He is considered fluent in Latin, as well as Slovak (which he would have spoken in the house as a child), and Italian (which comes in handy when visiting Rome). He also has an understanding of several others.

It could happen.

Brian Kopp said...

"Perhaps the examinations would be conducted by the Bishop himself."

The best educated guesses are that the test would have been administered by Msgr. Servinsky, the bishop's secretary for Canonical Affairs.

Pertinax said...

I'm not sure that I would deem what the priest did as courageous, more antagonistic. If he were truly courageous he would have started offering the TLM completely ignoring Joe's nefariously unlawful edict. By submitting to the test he has unwittingly given assent to its legitimacy and set a precedent that is now applicable to all, the good monk included.

Brian Kopp said...

I've added the pertinent quotes from Cardinal Hoyos to the body of the original article:

Cardinal Hoyos has stated:

"priests can decide, without permission from the Holy See or the bishop, to celebrate the Mass in the ancient rite. And this holds true for all priests…It is not therefore necessary to ask any other permission...The Code of Canon Law says who must give permission to say Mass and it is not the bishop: The bishop gives the "celebret," the power to be able to celebrate [i.e., both the old and new forms of the rite], but when a priest has this power, it is the parish priest and the chaplain who must grant the altar to celebrate. If anyone impedes him, it is up to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in the name of the Holy Father, to take measures until this right is respected…The Pope does not impose the obligation; the Pope does impose offering this possibility where the faithful request it. If there is a conflict, the authority of the bishop must intervene to avoid it, but without canceling the right that the Pope gave to the entire Church.”



Asked whether the Latin Mass would be celebrated in many ordinary parishes in future, Cardinal Castrillon said: “Not many parishes – all parishes. The Holy Father is offering this not only for the few groups who demand it, but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist.”



“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"...

The cardinal said that parishes and priests should make available the Extraordinary Form so that “everyone may have access to this treasure of the ancient liturgy of the Church.” He also stressed that, “even if it is not specifically asked for, or requested” it should be provided. ...so that “young communities can also become familiar with this rite.”

David L Alexander said...

"If he were truly courageous he would have started offering the TLM completely ignoring Joe's nefariously unlawful edict."

So long as the priest is "competent" as defined in the decree, there is nothing (and by "nothing," I mean ABSOLUTELY "nothing") preventing the regular celebration by a priest of a private Mass.

Pertinax said...

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what Cardinal Hoyos says. Joe is an authority unto himself and obviously doesn't care what Hoyos or any other Church official says. His modus operandi is and will always be "Joe locuta, causa finita". If priests assent to this then it will always be this way. The good monk has taken the correct path; one that I believe Hoyos is encouraging with his statements. Now will they do anything about priests who take this stand and are sacrificed like the ones in the parish in Italy. So far I don't see it but these priest will be the modern martyrs of the faith in their example. One "action" that Roman Catholics can follow. Ironic that this martyrdom is at the hands of those supposedly tasked with guarding the salvation of our souls.

Anonymous said...

"Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop..."

This statement does not mean that Bishops have authority where there is none. In other words, this statement is not promoting the idea that Bishops can continue their rebellious exercises, but emphasizes that they should act within their true authority.

The Pope had to publish this Motu Proprio because up to now most Bishops were illegally preventing the free celebration of the older Mass, which has never been abrogated. EVER. Because of the actions of bishops themselves, the Pope was forced to embarrass our bishops by asserting his own authority and speaking directly to his priests and his people.

Not all bishops are rebellious, some have allowed the old Mass, some are afraid of the "fraternal pressures" of approval of their brother bishops, and some are simply misinformed or misguided.

The Pope is saying, "Bishops you can no longer stand in the way of this Mass."

The Papal role is not as some weak advisor to the Bishops, but has the last word as head of our Church. The Pope is demonstrating this rightful role as a last resort.

Tina in Ashburn

humboldt said...

Does any want to bet that Piero Marini will be appointed cardinal by Benedict XVI? I would.

Pertinax said...

I agree with Tina of Ashburn that the Pope has the last word. We must understand though that he has to deal "collegially" with his brother bishops. The draconian approach of Vatican I will not be utilized.

What we are witnessing is a classic demonstration of the process of "aufhebung" as deliniated by Hegel. The papal mass is the synthesis of the thesis (Novus Ordo) and the anti-thesis (TLM). What is interesting is the order of the operative juxtaposition.

I doubt any clarification of summorum pontificum will hold water with the recalcitrant bishops until the Pope celebrates the TLM. This dialectic "Marshall Plan" needs this concrete action to substantiate the synthesis.

A Deacon said...

Wow... it suddenly got harder to post here.

David L Alexander wrote: “I am unsubscribing from this conversation. Your frequent attacks on other commenters, in matters beyond the issue, are not worth the trouble it takes to respond.”

I apologize, I had no intention of offending, nor was I “attacking” anyone”. I was just trying to understand your position. Asking questions and challenging a position is not an “attack”. Seriously, lighten up. Read the posts above again.

Tina stated: “"Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop... This statement does not mean that Bishops have authority where there is none. In other words, this statement is not promoting the idea that Bishops can continue their rebellious exercises, but emphasizes that they should act within their true authority.”

I do not see your point. Nothing means just that – nothing, zip, zero, nada. And just who is determining what “rebellious” is in this case?

cv wrote: “First of all, off topic! And the rest is more from the social action "holier than thou" types.”

Hardly “off-topic” and “holier than thou”. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. It does not stop at the church door.

cv wrote: “And you're a deacon now with that old attitude?”

“Old attitude??” Since when is the Code of Canon Law “Old Attitude”?

I will state it again,.. The whole point of the motu proprio was to reconcile and unify, not to build up some group's agenda. The wheels of the Church move very slowly. Respect church authority. Pray for and support your Bishops and Priests. You are treading on thin ice when you tear them down just because you may not agree with them.

David L Alexander said...

"The whole point of the motu proprio was to reconcile and unify, not to build up some group's agenda."

First of all, you were over the top. Mr Kopp and "ck" have called you on it. So, you might try lightenin' up a bit yerself. Now then...

I usually invite people, if they read just one book that gives them the mind of the Holy Father on the worship of the Church, it is "The Spirit of the Liturgy," which he wrote as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and is published by Ignatius. In those pages, you will find all you need to know about the so-called "agenda." Not to mention a few surprises. I really, REALLY, wanna recommend this book to you. Send me your mailing address via e-mail, and I will personally send you the extra copy I have.

Oh, and one more thing, concerning respect of priests and bishops. It's a two-way street. There's a distinction between the man and the office. Kissing a man's ring is one thing; it's quite another to kiss his...

You get the idea.

A Deacon said...

David L. Alexander wrote:

'First of all, you were over the top. Mr Kopp and "ck" have called you on it.”

Hey David, for one that unsubscribed to these posts, it is nice to see you back! All I did was ask a few questions... and received no answers - hardly “over the top,” and I cannot see how anyone “called me on it”.

“I usually invite people, if they read just one book that gives them the mind of the Holy Father on the worship of the Church, it is "The Spirit of the Liturgy,.. Not to mention a few surprises."

Thanks for the offer David, however I already have a copy and have read it, twice. I did not see any surprises in it. And your point is?

“Oh, and one more thing, concerning respect of priests and bishops. It's a two-way street. There's a distinction between the man and the office. Kissing a man's ring is one thing; it's quite another to kiss his... you get the idea,”

No, I do not get the idea. Just how can one possibly expect to win people over to their position when one reads these comments?

David L Alexander said...

"No, I do not get the idea."

I couldn't have summed it up better myself.

Pertinax said...

I would posit that respect for Church authority is a command structure proposition and not a "two way street". But if authority is authentically applied a need of reciprocity is mute for the Church that is pulling in the same direction. This Church has been officially pulling apart for quite some time as was blatantly evidenced by the Frings cartel during the Rhine revolution.

This example amplifies the point of obedience. If a bishop is not obedient to the wishes and directives of the Pope then is he not calling into question the authenticity of his own authority?

Egotism is the anasthetic that dulls the pain of ignorance. Humility is the tonic that satiates honesty.

David L Alexander said...

"I would posit that respect for Church authority..."

...is not to be used at one's personal whim. Nor does it trample on the rights of those who are served under that authority. That's the "two-way street," and therefore the point.

Pertinax said...

Part of the problem with understanding directives like summorum pontificum is that its reception tends to engendger a secular sense of rights by the laity which do not properly exist in the Church.

David L Alexander said...

Pertinax:

I'm aware that such could be a problem, but in this case, you may wish to be more specific.

Starting with the text of the document itself.