Universae Ecclesiae: a good thing. Let's get that out of the way first. I'm very pleased for various reasons and will give a few in a moment. First, though, let me point you to some good posts on this which have been carefully written while I have been swanning about in Rome. Non blogger bloggers have been favoured today since blogger has apparently been down for 24 hours. I was going to claim that I had asked google to switch it off until I got home, but some people would not get the joke and would send papal ninjas to shoot me, so let me say clearly that I had nothing to do with it.
Naturally Fr Z has covered this in considerable depth throughout the day. He has helpfully posted a list of RECENT POSTS about “Universae Ecclesiae” which will be updated. If you want a good summary of the document with well-considered observations, see his major post on it. Of particular interest for those in England and Wales are his comments on what Archbishop Nichols said today. There is also a WDTPRS poll for you to vote in. You are also encouraged to comment, with the amusingly sardonic rider "I know how reticent most of you are about giving an opinion about anything to do with liturgy." In accord with the genius of WDTPRS, there is a good drilling-down into the text of paragraph 21 on training of priests and seminarians and particularly the adverb enixe. (Lewis & Short: strenuously, earnestly, zealously)
Naturally the NLM has its own first-rate analysis and commentary; Fr John Boyle casts a canonical eye on the document; and the Transalpine Redemptorists affirm that it is Not for us "Black Friday". Damian Thompson writes: Vatican upholds and strengthens Summorum Pontificum. The Extraordinary Form is now a permanent feature of the mainstream Church and has picked up on the human interest story of Fr Stephen Dunn of the Archdiocese of Glasgow.
Now that kitty is peeping round to check that Summorum Pontificum is being implemented properly, I should perhaps weigh in with observations of my own.
I read the document three times carefully today, checking the Latin (which is the authoritative text) and little of it is left without marginal markings, mostly exclamation marks which are my shorthand for "good" when annotating books and documents. Here is a list of some of the things I liked about Universae Ecclesiae:
- n.4 Pope Paul VI approved a "new missal" - novum Missale - i.e. we now have an authoritative statement that it was not simply a reform of the old one. I suspect somebody regrets failing to get that bit struck out :-)
- n.7 The "sacred and great" line is quoted. Huzzah!
- n.8a The usus antiquior is a "precious treasure to be preserved"
- n.8b Summorum Pontificum (SP) guarantees the EF for all who ask for it and must be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful
- n.10.1 The PCED has hierarchical superiority against Ordinaries who try to act contrary to SP
- n.13 Bishops are to act in agreement with the mind of the Holy Father in SP and in case of controversy, the PCED will adjudicate
- n.15 (Obviously but good to have it stated) the stable group may be people who came together even after the publication of SP
- n.20a Priests are presumed to be idoneus
- n.20b For Latin, priests do not have to have a classics degree; they must simply be able to "pronounce the words correctly and understand their meaning" (Fr Z has been saying this for ages. He was right.)
- n.21 (See the footnote) By the way, both Vatican II and the Code of Canon law require that seminarians should be taught Latin
- n.28 (Essentially...) no female servers, extraordinary ministers etc. in the EF
- n.33 You can do the Triduum in the old rite even if it means you have a repetition (i.e. the new rite as well.)
- n.34 Oh, yes, don't be silly, the Dominican etc. rites are allowed.
The PCED were first to bat and their first innings was not too exciting although n.4 was a deliberate edge just outside third slip for four. In to bowl, PCED stamped its authority with n.7, an obvious but dangerous fast delivery on target for middle stump by the fresh bowler, while n.8a added a little seam and n.8b moved a worryingly towards leg stump. n.10.1 was a bouncer that made an orange-sized bruise, while n.13 was the work of a timely spin bowler who made the batsman's heart beat nervously. In the second innings, nn. 20 and 21 were a series of perfectly executed square cuts to the boundary against a lacklustre medium-pace bowler and n.28 was the devastating punishment of a short ball hooked for six over the head of long leg. n.33 was a cheeky run taken while mid-off was fumbling and n.34 was one of those drives that made the umpire dance to avoid stopping the ball. PCED declared with every chance of bowling out the liberals easily.
Hope that makes it all clear: I think Fr Withoos will understand ;-)
And now, boys and girls, it is time for "another chance to see"...
21 comments:
Ahhhh, see, Fr., your cricketing analogy...THAT I understand! Alas, none of the Dutchies amongst whom I live will get it (or admit to getting it), but never mind ;)
One observation I made, living in the US. Is that this document cannot be found anywhere on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website. Not even on their news section. So my guess is that this document is really not that important for most Catholics, according to the USCCB. But I can almost guarantee, that the document on the sex abuse scandal will make front page news next week on their website.
Although the Instruction is indeed good on many points as you have listed for us Father, it simply reiterates what we all knew or believed anyway. What is disappointing is that it only says seminarians ‘should’ be formed in the 1962 Rites and then only ‘if pastoral needs suggest it’. I cannot understand how a seminarian can be formed to preside using only one half of the Church’s legitimate liturgical books. I suggest that the pastoral need we should note is that of justice, in that it is unjust and perhaps morally wrong for any generation to decide what future generations will be denied, especially when the object in question is a sacred rite of the Church, and particularly since the Church has all power to forbid what is evil but no authority to forbid what is holy.
Thanks for this fantastic post Father Tim. Your cricketing analogies were superb, accurate and amusing. Great to see that SP celebration video again.
Glad you're safely back from Rome and thanks again for your advice preparatory to my own first trip there for the Vat. Blogmeet.
Jane - many thanks.
Fr Gary - yes, I agree that the "pastoral needs" clause is disappointing but it would have been unlikely for the PCED to get through a hard requirement. What we have is pretty good IMHO.
My hope is that the Holy Father would require ALL priests to learn the Extraordinary Form...perhaps in a five year time period and that ALL newly ordained priests would also be required to learn.
Benedicamus Domino. Thank you, Fr, for this wonderful news.
I liked the cricket analogy a lot.
As far as the document itself is concerned, I'd say that it is very good, with the only exception of the neglecting of the Ambrosian Rite (very probably addressed in future) and of the situation in the seminaries (addressed no one knows when).
But the "liberals" can have no hope anymore that there will be any backpedaling, and the Tridentine is not going to be polluted by Post V-II "innovations" (altar "girls" and the like).
I find the entire episode extremely encouraging, particularly considering the fears emerged in February.
Mundabor
The American sport is called, "baseball." Please, take note.
The American sport is called, "baseball." Please, take note, Father.
Great post, Father! Of course, I didn't understand a word of the cricketing analogy ("American Rounders"? My dear Father, we call it "baseball"!), but all in all I enjoyed it!
Sorry - the reference to "rounders" was one of those English humour digs. No offence meant - I'm sure baseball is very good and one day I will go to a game. Fr Z explained some of the rules to me the other day :-)
Father since the Ordinary and Extraordinary are considered two forms of the same Roman Rite. Wouldn't we essentially have three forms of the Roman Rite, with the Ordinariates and their liturgy. Since they are under the Roman Rite, and not a separate rite, like the Ambrosian or Mozarabic Rites?.
Just when I thought I could "get" any British joke ....
There is, of course, a cricket report in the New Testament.
'Peter stood up before the 11 and was bold.'
Robert - yes, quite possibly.
Gregory - boxing too: 'it 'is eye, do not be afraid.
"We worked hard all night and caught nothing" was Simon's conclusion following a bad evening in the field under lights.
Not sure how much cricket Fr Withoos actually does understand, but some of us Commonwealth types do!
I should add that one thing Fr Withoos does know is how to sing. He did a beautiful job as sub deacon singing the epistle at St Peter's Basilica on Sunday.
Father, the Ninja Carthusians of Achiltibuie (Sarum Use) have asked me to share with you this piece of "Anglican patrimony":
Almighty and eternal Father, who hast set Benedict our Pope as Pastor over thy whole Church, and hast made him to be a faithful steward of the treasures of thy household, both old and new; we beseech thee graciously to consider our humble thanksgiving for the same and, of thy great mercy, to pour upon him thy continual favour; that we, worthily celebrating the holy mysteries of thy temple, may together with him be brought at last unto that everlasting worship of thee in heaven which thou createdst us from the beginning to offer; through Jesus Christ thine only Son, our Lord, who livest and reignest with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end, AMEN.
In respect of the "pastoral needs" clause in section 21, which several people refer to, please all note (we shall need to repeat this again and again, I fear), that the Latin makes no mention of 'pastoral needs'. It says:
"adiunctis id postulantibus"
which means "as additional circumstances demand it", which even the most hardlined will agree is very different indeed.
In fact, correctly read it almost means the opposite - that bishops should provide such instruction in the seminaries if it is not already available.
Post a Comment