It seems to me that this misreads an essentially permissive enactment. The first principle of Summorum Pontificum is that the older form of the Roman Rite was never abrogated and was therefore, in principle, always legitimate. As Article 1 states:
"It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church."The previous conditions under which this form of the rite could be used are then substituted with conditions that give greater freedom to priests and laity.
There are a couple of restrictive conditions: the priest must be idoneus; only one such Mass is allowed in an ordinary parish on days of precept. There is no stipulation that the priest must wait for a group to ask him - the point is that if a group should ask, the pastor must "willingly accept their requests" and if he won't, they may have recourse to the Ordinary.
Summorum Pontificum is not saying "You may celebrate the older form of the Mass if and only if these conditions apply" but rather "you ought to celebrate the older form of the Mass if these conditions apply". Since the general principle is that the older form is legitimate, not harmful or forbidden, should be preserved as part of the riches of the Church and remains noble and great for us too, there may be many other circumstances in which it is pastorally desirable, in the judgement of the pastor, to celebrate this form of the Mass.
And, of course, the norms do apply principally to pastors. As the Holy Father says in his accompanying letter:
"The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations."
17 comments:
Yes !!!
As a Parish Priest myself, I am delighted to concur with this analysis. Thank you, Father.
A fascinating subject.
I look forward to a clarification of what is meant by a "group which exists stably" if in this context the adverb "continenter" is best translated as "stably".
It would appear to be the case that a parish priest, or pastor, is free to celebrate in the vetus ordo, if he chooses, without first receiving a request to do so by a group of the faithful.
However, from what I have been told by various priests, the very real difficulty is a practical one.
When does the average priest or pastor have time to celebrate in the vetus ordo in addition to his very full schedule of Masses ?
Therefore, it would seem, even priests who are "idoneus" might not have the time for, say, an additional Sunday Mass in the vetus ordo, even where it is specifically requested.
As I understand it, it would then be up to the bishop to arrange a Mass in the vetus ordo.
Or, failing that, the matter would be referred to the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
But the question still arises :
If there are not enough priests to celebrate additional Masses, then where can the celebrants be found ?
(Particularly on Sundays)
At present, there are,I think,17 weekly Sunday Masses in the vetus ordo in 10 out of the 19 dioceses of England.
Not all these are celebrated by diocesan priests.
Of course, I am assuming that Mass in the vetus ordo can be celebrated "if and only if" it is in addition to, not instead of, scheduled Masses in the novus ordo.
I may be wrong in thinking this condition exists.
(I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am)
I would like to be able to say I agree with what Father Tim has written.
But things would have to be very different before the question of pastoral judgement could arise.
I will know I am wrong if the number of weekly Sunday Masses in the vetus ordo rises significantly above the present number.
Dear Father, what is wrong with translating 'continenter' as 'stably'? Is there a better translation?
I must say - it all does seem very confusing.
A friend of mine has a chapel in her garden and would like to have the Old Rite celebrated there on a Sunday. She has asked the local PP who says he would rather she did not have a mass on Sundays there - any other day but not Sunday. This seems to fly in the face of the MP.
Really - are PPs allowed to do this?
It is most frustrating as there is a fair lot of us who would like to go to the Old Rite - accross several parishes and they would be prepared to travel to my friend's chapel.
Dominie
I thought we all existed temporarily.(temporally, that is.) Or have I misunderstood. And, has anyone had any luck in proving that they are quite stable enough to deserve Latin Mass, yet ?
As a canonist, I have to say, an EXCELLENT set of observations. One wonders just how disingenuous men hostile to the Extraordinary form can be.
Hi Father!
Just curious - which Mass setting for Friday?
This very thought had ocurred to me in reading a number of the Episcopal responses to SP... paricularly those that then went on to "clarify" and "interpret" the conditions under which a priest may use the older Missal. All of the "ifs" in the letter and the actual document seem to be conditions on the issue of compulsion, not on the issue of permission. <<"If" a group of the faithful request it, "then" the Priest is compelled to do so, or to defer to the Ordinary to satisfy their request>>. The interpretation which seems to be more popular, wrongly so as you have pointed out here, is <<"If" the faithful request it, "then" the priest "may" do so>>... these are two very different readings. I agree with you wholly that the prior reading here is the intended one.
Just a note as to the "restrictive" conditions, in particular "idoneus". Like all laws which restrict liberty, this must be interpreted strictly, that is to say, be given minimal extension. Which is why Cardinal Egan (who is, after all, a canonist) is right when he says that priests must be able to pronounce the Latin words correctly, and why those bishops who seem to want priests to show that they could get a first in Greats are wrong.
I visited a websiteof a Stephen Lovatt of Basingstoke. He had written to the Director of Liturgy in the Postsmouth Diocese about a Tridentine Mass being held in the Holy Ghost Basingstoke. The Director`s reply was that the Moto Proprio was just for those catholics who had not fallen into line with the changes of Vatican II. And, he told us, in his ususal tongue in cheek way that there was an amendment afterwards which came to late for the printing saying that it was only those who had shown an interest in the past in the Tridentine liturgy who were to receive permission. I have written a letter to Bishop Hollis for clarification. This is the sole mention of the Moto Proprio in the Diocese. It is like many other things hushed up.
For those who cannot attend a Latin Mass, there is always "Dr. Who."
The Dr Who themed evening of worship takes place at 6.30pm, on Sunday, September 23, at St Paul’s Church, Grangetown, Cardiff.
Link:
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=dr-who-fans-will-flock-to-his-church&method=full&objectid=19786862&siteid=50082-name_page.html
@ Dominie:
The reason why the Parish Priest will not celebrate there on a Sunday is that, unless a special dispensation is granted by the Ordinary, the obligation to hear Mass can only be fulfilled at public or semi-public oratories, not in private chapels.
I'm sure King Canute felt much the same as one or two of our bishops in this post-Summorum Pontificum world, quietly ignoring the first waves licking at his feet, choosing to believe that the tide hasn't turned. However, we mustn't be naive: many of those given positions by these bishops will do all they can to perpetuate their current liturgical leanings. John Kearney's discovery of "only for those who didn't accept Vatican II" as a policy for sidelining the Motu proprio in Portsmouth therefore should not surprise us too much. The answer is to make sure these people & the bishops themselves know that there are thousands of faithful catholics who welcome the use of the Extraordinary form and who want it to be used. In this way, they won't be allowed to bury it or to hush it up.
And another thing ..
What a very sensible comment by Dom Christopher.
I entirely agree with him.
A priest who is "idoneus" need not be an accomplished classicist.
In the context of Summorum Pontificum the adjective "idoneus" suggests to me nothing more than capable : a priest who is capable and therefore able to celebrate the vetus ordo worthily.
There remains, of course, the problem of expecting parish priests who are already over-burdened with their existing heavy schedules, to fit in yet another Sunday Mass.
I think many parish priests binate or trinate on Sundays already.
They can't do the impossible.
There are three Oratorian houses in England : Brompton, Birmingham and Oxford. And there is at present a very limited number of FSSP priests.
People seeking the vetus ordo on a weekly Sunday basis, must realise this.
I would say to people :
Be patient.
This Motu Proprio has already achieved a very great deal.
We must wait and see how widely and how regularly it can be used in practice.
And this will take time.
I see (on Catholic World News site) that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has re-iterated that any priest can say the Extraordinary rite and he does not need the permission of his bishop. He repeates that this Mass was never forbidden and so it cannot be forbidden now.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53525
JARay
John Kearney is right.
For the 125th anniversary of the Portsmouth diocese, recently celebrated at Winchester Cathedral, a number of Catholic bell ringers had planned (some undergoing extra practice sessions) to come from miles around to ring the cathedral bells for the event. A few days beforehand, said team of ringers was informed that their efforts would not be welcome as it would conflict with the plans of the said lay Director of Liturgy (peace be upon him).
John Kearney is right. Pray that one day the rest of the laity may have the opportunity for participation in the liturgy in the diocese of Portsmouth!
"Like all laws which restrict liberty, this must be interpreted strictly, that is to say, be given minimal extension."
Dom Christopher,
Would you not also say that laws which give liberties, as Summorum Pontificum does, should be interpreted liberally? That seems to me the "in directo" purpose of the directive.
Post a Comment