I have held off commenting on the latest announcement from the Bishops Conference of England and Wales regarding Holydays in the Extraordinary Form because I am not quite sure what is being attempted here. It seems that if Mass is celebrated on Ascension Thursday Sunday in the older form of the rite, the Sunday after Ascension should be suppressed and the Mass of the Ascension should be celebrated instead. Not the most brilliant idea in liturgical terms but we could cope with that. But the more important question is over celebrations on the actual days. Are we to take it that those people who want to go to a traditional Mass on Corpus Christi despite there no longer being any obligation to do so are to be prevented?
If this is the case, I am reminded of Cicero's question "Cui bono?" - to whom will this be a benefit? What possible good could be achieved by prohibiting people from voluntarily coming to Church to worship God on a feast day hallowed by centuries of tradition?
The text of the response to the dubium has not yet been published so we will have to see what it actually says. I wonder if it is possible to prevent any celebration of a votive Mass of Corpus Christi on 22 May or of All Saints on 1 November; and again, what possible benefit could be achieved by trying to do so?
Damien Thompson has written about this in his post A petty victory for liberal bishops. I expect that one or two people might want to ask Cardinal Hoyos about this when he visits England in June.
19 comments:
I am not sure if I am not missing the point here, but the only thing this seems to serve is the bishops getting one over the traditionalists. Personally I prefer to celebrate the Epiphany of the Lord and the Ascension of the Lord etc on the actual day. Even if the bishops are successful I would still hold true to myself and attend Mass on the intended day whether of not I was able to hear the appropriate Mass. Whether my actions are to be recognised or not matters little providing I know I have stood by my conscience.
P.S. I happen to be really looking forward to the High Mass in the old form at the Oratory on Thursday usually they only celebrate the old form as a Low Mass on Sunday and this will be my first to seeing the old form in all its glory.
Father:
I have been specifically told by Priests of the extraordinary form, who are in the know, that this thing does nothing apart from move the obligation...
It cannot be denied that the existence of two liturgical calendars is a bit confusing, to say the least.
But it is the consequence of the Roman rite having two Missals.
Clearly, one calendar would be desirable, but, since the two Missals enjoy parity, it is not clear why one Missal should give way to the other.
Indeed, this would have been an excellent opportunity for the 1970 calendar to conform with the 1962 calendar, thus reversing the controversial decision to move certain Holidays in England & Wales to the nearest Sunday.
This announcement by the Bishops' Conference solves nothing.
It pertains only to England & Wales. Even if the Ecclesia Dei ruling applies to the universal Church, I don't see the traditional communities going along with it.
It also raises the question of vigils.
If the Feast of the Ascension is Sunday 4 May 2008, can the Vigil be celebrated on Wenesday 30 April 2008? Another dubium ?
It seems votive Masses can licitly be celebrated on the Feast days proper.
But if the powers that be continue down this road, they will muck up the 1962 calendar to no purpose.
If this is how they plan to write a new liturgical calendar common to both forms, then they are going the wrong way about it.
Just a small observation from 'the school of the bleedin obvious', but surely it is BETTER for Catholics to have and attend the Holy Mass than not?
I just fail to see what all this is trying to achieve. The subtlety of it all is beyond me.
Surely the bottom line would be for our Bishops to encourage the faithful to attend Mass at EVERY OPPORTUNITY and make every effort to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to facilitate this.
I don't fully understand the rules on bination/trination, but won't this make it very difficult to celebrate the EF feasts at all on those Sundays in parishes that use both the EF and OF, due to the high demand for OF masses for the Sunday/transferred feast?
Dear Father,
as you are no doubt aware this received some airing at Fr Z's WDTPRS.
A most disappointing outcome, and approach.
WRT to the requiring of obligation in relation to canonical Holy days in Australia, we have had only 2 for quite some time - Christmas and the Assumption.
Of course there is NO difference between the 62 calendar and the current code of Canon Law/universal calendar - there are 10 holy days. It is just that virtually no diocese or episcopal conference in the world observes them.
Modern man is too busy to be asked to attend on anything but Sunday it seems....
Peter
I would advise wveryone rto be a little patient on this one. The wording on the website of the Bishops' Conference is vague and does not quote from the Ecclesia Dei Response. So far, there has been no clarification, so it seems likely that the people at Eccleston Square are not at all clear what the situation is.
In time, the precise form of the dubium and the response must emerge. Remember, this business of transferred Holydays affects almost every country in the world and the Vatican,in its own time, will come up with a ruling that makes sense and is workable.
Peter, you are right - 'Modern (UK)man is too busy to be asked to attend on anything but Sunday it seems....'
And our Bishops are falling over themselves to run with the 'spirit of the times'.
Soon, just like with the Sacrament of Confession, modern man might only need to attend Mass once per year! What a relief that would be to the overburdened hierarchy!
You can almost hear the laughter coming from the depths of hell!
George said: "I just fail to see what all this is trying to achieve."
What it is trying to achieve is a rather petty victory by the bishops over those attached to the Extraordinary Form.
For myself, regardless of how ineptly Eccleston Sq minions might have framed the dubium, I feel that the response relates to the Obligation, not to the celebration of the Feasts on their proper days.
If it means what the liberals would have us believe, that is a shot across the bows of the Motu Proprio and I don't think that's what the Holy Father would want.
I shall be celebrating the Ascension on Ascension Thursday at my nearest Oratory - even though I'll have to go through the whole thing again on Ascension Thursday Sunday. What a sorry state we're in in this country.
Ah !
Peter from Australia mentions Sundays.
And there you have it.
First, Holidays in the 1962 calendar are to conform to Holidays in the 1970 calendar, and be transferred with them.
Next, Sundays in the 1962 calendar will be made to conform to the 1970 calendar.
For example, the Last Sunday after Pentecost with its Gospel from Matthew, 24, warning of the last days, will be abolished so that on the last Sunday of the liturgical year both forms may celebrate in common the Feast of Christ The King.
This is the logical consequence of what Ecclesia Dei has (apparently) said.
What is "mutually enriching" about it ? Well, nothing, as far as I can see.
I don't want to make it any more difficult for the those charged with drawing up a new calendar acceptable to both "sides".
But if we are not careful, I can see the words "mutual enrichment" being hijacked in much the same way as the Liturgical Movement and Vatican II were hijacked.
Years ago in Ireland, before the advent of Episcopal Conferences, obligations differed from diocese to diocese. Whether it was ‘fast and abstinence’, the observance of a Holy Day of Obligation, or ‘no dancing during Lent’ what was of obligation in Diocese ‘X’ might be different from what was of obligation in Diocese ‘Y’.
A friend of mine had an expression for this, which aptly described the lunacy of it all: “regionalizing Mortal Sin”…
I think it still obtains!
seems like a very sensible move to me, the 2 calenders need to gradually move towards convergence.
mark - the 2 missals do not enjoy parity. the new missal is the ordinary form and the older missal is extraordinary.
Father, I pointed out on DT's blog that we need to see the question as well as the answer.
Mark:
I thought so too for some time but then it occurred to me that this interpretation doesn't actually seem to make any sense.
Why would the bishops submit a dubia to Ecclesia Dei if they simple wanted to ask whether the Holy Day of Obligation still applies to Ascension Thursday celebrated in the Extraordinary Form?
If the bishops were to *ONLY* move the Holy Day of Obligation for Masses celebrated in the Ordinary Form to Sunday then this would just make no sense at all. Clearly, since no one has to obligation to attend TLM, then you can't keep the Holy Day of Obligation on Thursday for these EF. In addition, if you attend EF on Thursday when what would be the point of fulfilling the obligation (which would somehow become an obligation for the person because he attends) if you still have to go to Mass on Sunday.
So I just don't think that the bishops would be stupid enough to ask whether the Holy Day of Obligation moves to Sunday for the EF. If they wrote a dubia they had to be asking a different question and so I guess the other and less fortunate interpretation of the announcement is the correct one. I think they meant the actual Celebration of Ascension.
Tomas
I detect a little flexing of the Episcopal muscles here
Regarding Corpus Christi, could you get technical and say that it is not quite the same between the two forms?
In the Ordinary form, the Feast of the Most Holy Body and Blood is celebrated.
Whereas, in the Extraordinary Form, the Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ) is celebrated on one day, and there is a separate feast for the Most Precious Blood.
All this 'clever politicking' and dates for this and books for that! Surely to goodness Our Blessed Lord wants nothing more than for as many of us as possible to be with Him as often as possible at the foot of His cross during the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
And especially at these most Holy of days which commemorate such momentous events in the whole of human history!
The duty of our Bishops to whom the pastoral care of us all has been entrusted by God should centre on nothing other than to encourage this.
A number of commenters, here and elsewhere, have said words to the effect of:
"the two calenders need to gradually move towards convergence".
In this instance, a I said in my previous post, it is NOT and issue of alignment.
The holy days of obligation in the UNIVERSAL CALENDAR, as detailed in the Code of Canon Law, fall on EXACTLY the SAME days in the calendar for the 1962 missal.
The praxis (transfer, obligation) in respect of these holy days is what has been questioned, but it is NOT about ALIGNMENT.
That doesn't change my view that the apparent approach of the UK bishops is extremely vexing, and might be applied virtually anywhere else in the world.
The praxis of transferring every MAJOR feast day to the nearest Sunday is inimical to a true liturgical spirit (imho).
There are other issues that are not aligned between the two calendars, both in terms of Sundays (as noted by PeterHWrigt) and feast days.
One area that might be more worthy of attention would be how to accomodate NEW SAINTS in the 1962 calendar. Small steps to start ....
The more one looks at it the more of a dog's dinner it seems. The Birmingham Oratory is celebrating Ascension tomorrow as an external solemnity. Good for them. But in the 62 calender it is only because Asc. falls on 1st May that St Joseph the Worker has been pushed onto the 2nd. If Asc. isn't on the 1st, then St Joseph is, that's a First Class feast, and takes precedence over external solemnities.
On Corpus Christi, I know you can't have the Sequence in Votive Masses. Dunno about external solemnities.
The bishops have made no provision for the implications of moving the feasts. Vigils, Octaves, Matins? I think the only sensible thing to do at this juncture is ignore it until it is clarified.
Post a Comment