I agree with Fr Z's comments and would add that Bishop Budd is a fair-minded man. I liked the last part of his statement:
May I urge you to celebrate the present liturgy (the ordinary rite) of all the sacraments of the Church ‘attente et devote’. The quality of the parish celebration of the renewed liturgy is an important context for the permitted use of the rite now designated `Extraordinary’.The use of the older form of the rite should help and encourage priests in the proper celebration of the newer form. In fact, as Dr Hemming pointed out at the Merton Conference, the older form provides a necessary anchor for the newer form.
14 comments:
I know pitifully little about this matter, and I know that you asked for comments about the matter itself, Fr., rather than about individuals, but it pleases me that you think (at least a little!) well of Bishop Christopher. I was born in his diocese, know him a little, and think highly of him.
Even though I don't know what it is, I hope that he is able to "apply" (perhaps the wrong word) the moto proprio in such a way that it will improve the liturgy in Plymouth whilst ensuring that everyone knows and understands what's happening. I have confidence in his ability to do that.
Well yes - except that the Extraordinary Reform is also a "present form" (this cannot be stated with excessive frequency) which is no longer the subject of "permission".
It's still the old mindset.
Dear Father can I very gently prod you to give a plug to the LMS High Mass in Westminster Cathedral on Sat. Oct. 6t at 2.00pm. I'm sure you are intending to but just on the very off chance that it has slipped below the Hermeradiar of Contunity. Kind regards, Michael.
I wasn't over happy with his suggestion of 50 people for a Sunday ER celebration,
However one has to factor in that it is a spread out diocese with few priests (re the chideock fiasco) and it would be most wrong to have extra ER masses attended by a handful of people while not having masses at all in places like Chideock
The solution here in Chideock would be to invite the FSSP or other local priests who are familiar with the ER to say a weekly ER mass at Chideock.
Good to see though that he has not tried to interfere with weekday masses.
Personally I suspect that the ER will take off more quickly on weekday masses, especially Saturday Mornings.
Excellent point! Even for those of us who prefer the newer rite (for a variety of reasons) it can't possibly hurt that the older form is available, and it could help revive a spirit of renewal all the way around.
It really ticks me off no end bishops trying to put up roadblocks to the 1962 missal. They should just back off and let this play out without too much ninny-nannying. It's fair enough that priests should be competent enough in the LAtin and can do the ritual - (and I don't mean they should be able to write a dissertation in latin either) but once that basic requirement is met, the bishops should just mind their own business and see what fruit this bears.
They need to stop persecuting and making it difficult for people who feel drawn to the older usage.
I see Bishop Budd sticks to the word "extraordinary" for the old Mass.
I wonder if other bishops will do the same.
I am glad of Moretben's timely reminder that this is not about a new permission for the old Mass.
It isn't "old" in the sense of belonging exclusively to a former age, and therefore to be kept in a cupboard somewhere.
It has been restored to the life of the Church.
No permission is needed !
That is the central theme of "Summorum Pontificum".
The era of permissions, permits, and indults is over.
Officially.
I fully agree this can never be said too often.
Sorry, it's me again.
I've only just read Karen's comment and she is absolutely right.
I don't think I've seen it put better :
We really don't need the bishops trying to put up road blocks to the 1962 Missal. Let us see what fruit this bears.
Well said, Karen.
Fr. Tim,
This is not intended as a dig at Bishop Budd - it's more of a general remark having read a lot of Fr. Z's coverage of episcopal reactions to Summorum Pontificum:
Why the apparent double standard, seen so frequently, of bishops who insist that the EF can only be celebrated by expert, exam-accredited Latinists, who know the rubrics by heart, adhere to them scrupulously and pronounce everything perfectly - while at the same time not applying the same gold standard to the celebration of the Novus Ordo?
I guess that by posing the question, I'm sort of answering it: clever Pope Benedict!
Fr Tim,
I think Francis has a point. My experience with Bishop Budd and what we now call the 'Extraordinary Form:Use' of the Roman liturgy, has not been positive to date, though one also hears positive comments about him despite his theologically liberal attitude. Let us hope that the bishop does not intend to build walls and put road blocks in the way of the full implementation of the recent Motu Proprio. Let us have true reconciliation in the diocese of Plymouth and elsewhere.
Have I missed something here, surely every priest has to be able to say the ordinary expression of the Latin Rite in Latin before he is ordained? Have I misunderstood Canon Law? If he is capable of saying the ordinary expression in Latin, then the only question is that he learns the rubrical instructions that are an integral part of the extraordinary expression. Continuing education of the clergy should provide appropriate training to those who require it.
To be fair to Bishop Budd, what he wrote here is as applicable to the Extraordinary Rite as to the Ordinary, to today as to yesterday.
I hope this is not too "off topic", and I think Father Tim has already indicated his preference for "usus antiquior".
But so many people seem to be using so many terms for the older "Mass", I wonder if (in England, at least) a consensus is impossible.
New Liturgical Movement had a very interesting post, but it seems to have disappeared off the map, so to speak.
There is/was a useful debate (started quite accidentally by yours truly : I didn't mean to wake the entire nation,) going on at Fr Z's blogspot, WDTPRS, "So.. whaddya call that Mass ?" (21 September 2007)
The French and Italians seem to employ a variety of terms.
As someone pointed out to me, some expressions are more "loaded" than others.
And the media invariably go for the simplest regardless of its accuracy.
It seems to depend on whom you are speaking to, and what message (if any) you are trying to get across.
I myseld tend to use "vetus ordo" (as in vetus Latina) and "novus ordo" among Catholic colleagues, but I suppose I would use a different term in a different forum.
Both the numbers question and the training could be legitimate issues.
In a spread out disocese with few priests asking to be involved in Sunday Masses could be legitimate as I said above. He has asked, not ordered, and has not made any such comment about public weekday masses.
Regarding training. This will be essential to stop innovations like communion in the hand and lay extraordinary ministers of communion being used at the vetus ordo. Providing its genuine training not a throttle there is no issue
Perhaps the most obvious pointer to whether this is genuine request for training is whether such training is incorporated into the curriculum at Wonersh.
Bishop Budd's comment, about celebrating the Novus Ordo 'properly' is very pertinent. After all, if (I should say when!) the Extraordinary form becomes more available, this will really show a large number of Novus Ordo celebrations in a bad light and people will (I hope) realise what a bad deal they've been getting all these years.
Post a Comment