Gerald has a letter from the director of liturgy, Fr. Willis, in my diocese (St. Augustine) that I was rather disappointed with in its restriction concerning the celebration of the extraordinary form of Mass.
Bishop Galeone has determined that a group of 50 people registered at the parish is the minimum threshold for the Mass to be celebrated in the extraordinary form. Now I really love my bishop and consider him to be quite solid, but I do think this is a mistake that infringes on the authority given to priests by Summorum Pontificum.
Once again the bad translation of "stable group" is being used in a restrictive way. I find it ironic that the memo has strict requirements in priests knowing Latin before celebrating this form of Mass when as Fr. Z notes:
The diocesan norm quotes an unofficial and inaccurate translation of the Latin, which has the word coetus. A coetus has no specific number and can be, in fact, very small. It is certainly more than two. Some say as small as three people, which could include the priest himself since he is at the parish. The adverb used in the Latin, NOT an adjective like English "stable" – no derivation of which is to be found in the Latin document – is continenter which means "continuously". There must be a group of an unspecified number continuously present (Art. 5, § 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit…)
What if 40, 43, or even 49 people of the parish request the Mass.
Will they need Abraham to step in for mediation like he did for the people of Sodom. This seems to me that this should be an area of prudence specifically by the pastor
and it is micro-management to set an artificial number. The pastor in his prudence has to be the one to decide if the number of parishioners requesting the 1962 missal is enough for him to be able invest the time.
It seems to me in the majority of cases that to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass that another Mass has to be added to the parish schedule which certainly presents difficulties, but they are difficulties the pastor should decide. Surely one of the purposes of the Motu Proprio was to give this authority at the pastor level and undo restrictions by a diocese defeat that purpose.
The concept of subsidiarity
is really lost when you do this.
Now I can understand a diocese concerned that the 1962 missal is celebrated correctly and that the priest knows Latin well enough to celebrate the Mass correctly and that the rubrics are followed. But being an expert in Latin is not required and their are plenty of resources to learn the rubrics and to celebrate the older form correctly. It will really depend on how this memorandum is carried out in reality and whether it becomes rigorously restrictive. If only bishops across the country who are so concerned about the rubrics being celebrated correctly with the ordinary form of Mass. Now I have noticed since Bishop Galeone became our bishop there has been less outright liturgical abuses in the various parishes I sometimes attend so I am not trying to knock him here.
I also happen to somewhat know Fr. Willis who wrote this memorandum. I once attended a class he gave at our Eucharistic Congress and have been to several Masses as this parish. I found him to be a solid priest and that his Masses were abuse free. Though I wasn’t happy with his rebuilt parish Church where the sanctuary is extended out into the congregation and the altar is almost in the middle of the Church. He did celebrate a quite beautiful Mass during the interregnum and the choir was spectacular, especially the chanted Litany of the Saints. I just think his memo is unduly restrictive.
Read Fr. Z’s post on the subject for a much better and more technical look at this memorandum.
11 comments
Curiously, it is often the most ‘orthodox’ priests which are most restrictive regarding the use of Latin (for ANY occasion) in the Mass–or in this case, the Old Rite.
Frustrating, just plain frustrating. However, here in Oregon I wonder if we’ll even get such an opportunity.
a bishop has a right to determine the number.
to insist that the number be 2 or 3,
let me add: what we are facing in our diocese is such a shortage of priests that masses are being reduced in number because only 100 attend the mass. should those masses be continued, given the resources that are used?
i have no opinion on the use of the tridentine Mass, i grew up with it, the Pope has given a directive, we follow it. When the Bishop gives a directive, we follow that. My response always has been: when the Pope/Bishop wants my opinion, i’ll give it to them when they call.
Pope Benedict gave us the M.P. b/c bishops (especially in the US and Europe) did not respond generously to Pope John Paul II’s request to allow the 62 missal to be used in their dioceses. Now we have bishops nit-picking the M.P. and placing arbitrary definitions and restrictions on the use of the 62 missal after our Holy Father has more or less lifted the need for episcopal permission to use this missal. Maybe we will see (in 40? 50? years) the suppression of the 70 missal in favor of the 62?
Fr. Philip, OP
Greetings–I think it might help if we encourage “Curt Jester” readers in this diocese (and all that have ordinaries that are resisting the full implementation of Summorum Pontificum) to write their pastors VERY RESPECTFULLY and request, according to Article 5 of Summorum Pontificum, that they provide Holy Mass and the Sacraments according to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. If there is a legal issue, then, that has to go to Ecclesia Dei Commission, the faithful will have laid the groundwork.
I would also suggest that in that letter, the laity would also request their pastors to provide the older form of the Mass at funerals or weddings, as appropriate, according to Article 5, section 3. I put in my request something like �in the case of my death, I request a Requiem High Mass according to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite be sung for the repose of my soul and that I be buried with the 1962 rites for the dead.� That also gives pastors a job to do�in order to fulfill that part of the Motu Proprio, which they are expected to give us, they need to be able to say the older form or be able to find someone who will.
It may not move this bishop or cause anything earth-shaking, but it seems to me a way to fully express the desires of the faithful to have the Holy Father�s intent implemented in our parishes.
In Christ,
Is “the people of Saddam” a typo? It presented a funny image to my mind, but I’m not sharing it!
“Frjimt” is quite right on the whole number requirement. Folks always seem to miss Article 3 of the motu, which (rightfully) recognizes the bishop’s authority over the establishment of regular, recurring public liturgies. He can set the number to fifty or fifty-two, regardless of how silly or arbitrary it might seem. He still has the authority to do so. Fr. Z takes issue with how this relates to other articles, but according to Article 3, the “matter” is to be decided by the local ordinary.
The whole Latin capability requirement stuff is bonkers, though.
Una Voce http://www.unavoce.org has suggestions and sample letters for requesting the tradional Latin Mass.
We went to a talk by Father Goodwin, FSSP last week where he went through the SP article by article explaining and correcting the translation errors. He explained that a group according to the dictionary is 2 or more people so they took out the # required.
Our Holy Father has more or less lifted the need for episcopal permission to use the 1962 Missal in Masses celebrated without the people.
Parish Masses using the 1962 Missal are to occur “under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.”
So the idea that the one true interpretation of Summorum Pontificum means that the personal preference of two or three parishioners trumps absolutely all other considerations at either the parish or the diocesan level is [well, manifestly daft, but also] not in accord with the actual text.
More generally, the idea that a dictionary trumps a bishop in the governance of a diocese is really bad ecclesiology.
I echo Nathan’s call to respectfully request the local ordinary that permission be granted to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass. Summorum Pontificum includes, however, the provision that a negative decision may be appealed to the Ecclesia Dei commission. If no traction is gained at the diocesan level after respectful discussion, such an appeal is always a possibility.
Tom K:
Precisely. That’s why I didn’t catch motu fever like everybody else. Cardinal George came to our seminary and reminded all of us that there’s nothing the Holy Father could have done to take authority away from the bishop in matters of public liturgy. To state otherwise – or to suggest that he do otherwise – is, as you say, bad ecclesiology. I’d also daresay it’s not very “orthodox,” when one looks at how episcopal authority has worked since near the very beginning.
People also need to understand that as far as the extraordinary form goes, its genesis is largely seen in the privatized form, developing in an era where ten priests would be standing around side altars celebrating separate liturgies. Seen historically, then, it makes perfect sense to relax private celebration in the extraordinary form.