The misreading of "continenter" needs to be kicked firmly into touch. The Holy Father speaks of young people who have discovered this liturgical form and felt its attraction etc. He also says that the norms are
"meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations"It cannot be in accord with the mind of the legislator to say that people cannot now ask for the older form of the Mass if they have not asked for it before. That is not what "continenter" means in the context. It is not a strengthening of "stabiliter" which has a precise canonical meaning, but a weakening of it, probably to prevent a restrictive interpretation. A group that exists "continenter" is a group that has not just been gathered together "ad hoc" for a particular occasion.
The questions that are asked can reveal the mindset from which they come. To ask
1. Why has the Pope seemingly taken a step backwards in allowing the former Tridentine rite of Mass alongside the one we have now?and
3. What form of Mass is allowed by the Motu Proprio?give the impression that this is another indult, a permission of something generally forbidden. That was how most post-conciliar liturgists always used to think: this is the mindset that now needs to change. Article 1 of Summorum Pontificum sets out the fundamental principle of the document. It is a principle denied by establishment liturgists for decades and now quite clearly affirmed by Pope Benedict: it is permissible to use the 1962 missal because it was never abrogated.
Hence no priest needs any permission to celebrate this form of the Mass privately. It is not a question of when this form of Mass might be allowed but when, for particular reasons, it is not allowed. In a normal parish, it is not allowed to change all the Masses to the older form: it is specified that on days of precept, one may be said. (Presumably the Ordinary could dispense from this restriction for any reasonable cause.)
Apart from this, there may be any number of circumstances in which the priest may use his pastoral judgement in choosing to use the older forms of the rites. The Motu Proprio says (5.3) that the extraordinary form should be allowed by the Pastor for faithful or priests who request it, "such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages." Note the "e.g."
It is worth learning the following part of Pope Benedict's accompanying letter by heart to quote when talking to liturgists who argue according to the mindset of an era that has now been drawn to a close by Summorum Pontificum:
In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.By way of a footnote here, may I gently suggest, biretta on head, that it is best to stick to the issues rather than making personal comments about an individual. As Mr Meagi would say, "Focus!"
16 comments:
Are you talking about Damien Thompson?
No, I was thinking of one or two posts that I have read which made quite personal attacks on Paul Inwood. Damien is quite trenchant but makes important points about issues that need to be raised.
A very helpful clarification by Father Tim concerning recent misreadings of the adverb "continenter".
This goes beyond the rather narrow question of how best to translate the word from Latin to English.
It is also a matter of interpretation.
In the context of "Summorum Pontificum" (which is not a restrictive document : quite the contrary), "continenter" seems to have been used precisely to avoid using "stabiliter" which is much more open to a restrictive interpretation.
I think the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission will probably have to make this clear soon.
I was also very glad to read Father's reminder that "Summorum Pontificum" (which so clearly states that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated,) moves us on from the era of the Indults.
It is unhelpful, to say the least, if people (especially diocesan liturgists, et al.) retain the midset of a former era.
I see Father's point about avoiding criticism ad hominem.
Yes, the issue is about changing the liturgical mindset.
But I wonder if in one area, the issue has not already become personalised.
Guilty as charged....I was vituperative in my blog posting.
I apologize for letting my outrage getting the better of me; but I sincerely believe that it's people of Paul Inwood's liturgical mindframe who have desecrated the rubric of the Mass to the point of sacrilege.
The letter was perniciously mendacious and scurrilous - and it comes from a man who has spent decades evoking boredom,antagonism and hostility through his music amongst those whose devotion to the mass had already been compromised through a dearth of catechesis and poor example from the local clergy and 'professional laity'.
I'm afraid his using of the detestable 'clerical-abuse/child protection' card was the final straw...This man lied about the pope, lied about the motu proprio and lied about the mass....
Irrespective of how virtuous, devout or affable the gentleman may be personally - his actions need to be confronted head-on; and his conspiracy in the travesty which has overtaken contemporary western liturgical music merely confirms his credentials as being someone incapable of being an informed and objective commentator on His Holiness' Motu Proprio.
I'm glad you didn't mean me, Father. My comments on Paul Inwood are indeed pretty trenchant, and I've certainly not held back from commenting on the ghastliness of his music. But I think he's asked for a very forthright response, because in addition to writing what I think is execrable music he is setting himself up as a theological expert on matters that he clearly does not understand. And now he is misrepresenting the Pope's intentions, with the apparent aim of stopping people from asking for something that is theirs by right - the traditional liturgy of the Church.
I think that Fr Zs 5 golden rules ought to be borne in mind over the coming days.
Most of us here are pretty computer savvy, for many, including our bishops, the fact that YOU CANNOT HIDE INFORMATION AND WORDS is something they are not very aware of and is a dreadful shock- what the last government did with "dodgy dossiers" and emails to "bury bad news" is nothing new, its just that Blairs tenure of 1997-2007 covered the era when ordinary people gained powers of instant communication and broadcast that prior to 1997 had been the preserve of state broadcasting corporations and multinational media outlets.
If they write or do anything that is not in accordance with the Church's "rules" even semi privately in something like an ad clerum, someone in the laity will get to hear about it and broadcast it on a blog or chain email. This then gets picked up by a reader who happens to write for a national newspaper and so on.
On one level this is undoubtably an example of the actuo participo of the laity in the work of the Church that the council wanted (and had great foresight in seeing) but the danger of lacking charity is always there and must be resisted.
I've just seen this comment on Fr Z's blog where this document is under discussion:
"I think you will find that this document has been withdrawn from circulation. Thanks be to God."
No further explanation is given.
That's trained liturgists for you
Fr Tim, I think you will find that this document has been pulled.
It was perhaps unwise for Mr Inwood to introduce the emotive issue of clerical abuse/child protection in the way that he did. However, priests have always been issued with identity cards (called "celebrets") by their Bishop (or Superior in the case of a member of a Religious Order) to show that they are in good standing when they wish to celebrate Mass in a church where they are not known. Although they became "unfashionable" for a time after Vatican II, most sensible priests would now recognise their relevance & importance - and not take umbrage at being asked to show one.
..' What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful'...
Hmmmm... Except maybe for liturgical dancers, coloured glass jugs and bowls for the Body and Blood of Our Blessed Lord, incense burners the size of BBQ's, cum-ba-ya and other dreadful 'pop-church' music, hoards of extraordinary ministers, women priestesses and deacons, rainbow coloured vestments, hiding the Tabernacle, removing the kneelers, the 'sign of peace' hand-shaking hand-waving pew-jumping kissing hugging and back-slapping, hideous 'sacred' artwork, complete utter and total lack of the sense of the Sacred, etc... etc... etc.... Shall I go on?
Yes, it's definitely time (long, long overdue) to draw the line on the 'lukewarm' mindset of the catholic-crazies from this '40-year-some' era with Summorum Pontificum.
Deo Gratias for our Holy Father.
There are no circumstances in which the Roman rite i.e. the traditional Latin Mass, the Tridentine rite, the Missal of St Pius V etc (as distinct from the Missal of Paul VI, which is not the Roman rite) is "not allowed". The Solemn Bull Quo Primum of St Pius V makes clear that any restrictions on the Roman rite are invalid, inherently so and not just by positive law, because the Roman rite is immemorial custom. I never recognised the legal validly of the restrictions contained in the 1984 and 1988 indults and I don't recognise the ones in Summorum.
Thomasso & Stephen - I read that the document had been pulled and have sent an email to the press officer at Portsmouth to check. No reply as yet but your comments seem to confirm this.
Well, while it's a good principle always to play the ball rather than the man it should be noted that Mr Inwood and his chums have been responsible in part for the decline of the Catholic Faith in this country and beyond through the banality of their work and its promotion by the Liturgy Industry/BCE+W Complex.
The good of souls and their eternal fate is not a light matter and it may explain some of the strong feelings expressed.
You may be interested to read a note on Page 29 of that much esteemed (but not by me)journal
The Tablet" (this week). Here you will learn how that wonderful Bishop Raffael Nogaro, Bishop of Caserta near Naples has forbidden the celebration of Tridentine Masses in his diocese altogether.
(How very loyal to the Holy Father !) He remarked that "Latin was a "Distortion" that did not help build up ones relationship with God !!!! He is 73 so when he was ordained and for many years afterwards he was unable to have a relationship with God at all.???
Re: Fr Clifton's post about comments from Bishop Nogaro. How in heaven's name can Latin be a 'distortion' preventing a relationship with God?????
If my grammar school memory serves me well, virtually all European language is firmly rooted in Latin - as indeed was the Holy Mass for umpteen centuries.
Post a Comment