New Capo Ufficio for CDWDS

The Holy Father has named as Capo Ufficio [Head of the Office, or Office Manager] of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments Reverend Father Abbot Dom Michael John Zielinski, OSB Oliv.

Thus the announcement on the Vatican website today.

The Capo Ufficio is below the number 3 of a congregation, ranking below the Prefect, Secretary, and Undersecretary. The prefect is Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, the Secretary is Archbishop Arthur Roche, and the Undersecretary is Msgr. Tony Ward, SM.  Ward is usually credited as the author of Liturgiam Authenticam and a co-author of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Abbot Zielinski has been the Vice President of the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church, and Vice President of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology. He was named a consultor to the Congregation two years ago this month, as reported earlier on Pray Tell along with some other familiar names of a similar persuasion.

A flavor of his views can be gained from a recent paper on the Culture and Heritage of the Classical Roman Rite.

A websearch also reveals that he presided at a Pontifical High Mass in the EF in April 2009 at the London Oratory. A selection of other brief writings and oral responses can be found at the Vatican website, Catholic News Agency, and New Liturgical Movement to name only a few.

Share:

94 comments

  1. How sad – nothing like convening a management group that shares the same thinking process – believe Orwell called this *Group Think*. Reading through his *recent paper* and his arguments (analysis?) creates a *chilling* effect:
    IMO, his approach is to argue that the TLM is the *classic Roman Rite* citing the usual host of characters – Gamber, Gueranger, Pickstock.

    Other points that don’t tie together:
    – multiculturalism – defined as a recent modern Western society movement (sorry, any careful study of civilizations would demonstrate that multiculturalism has been a significant feature, definer, and developer of civilizations)
    – *cult*….can accept his definition but not his conclusions. Thus, he says that there have been in the Western Rite inspired and diverse new ways of rendering the one true worship of the incarnate Word but then goes on to pick and choose and thus qualify what he deems acceptable in these new diverse ways. He attempts to show that the TLM developed going back to the 4th century (some how we have skipped over the apostolic and half of the patristic periods)
    – the *to be expected* Gamber refrain that the VII revised liturgy was *fabricated*, music is banal, church spatial arrangements are unprecedentingly negative, and an ideology of novelty
    – then, pages developing the *liturgical thought* of Benedict XVI – not sure how to characterize his *hero worship* citing the *fantastic liturgical development* of restoring the crucifix to the altar; the use of medieval vestments; equating papal liturgies as the guideline for all of the Western Rite (ceremonial & kneeling for communion); numerous paragraphs on SP and, of course, JPII’s indult; the many *young* communities that are attracted to the EF (really? insignificant per bishops and in the context of a world church); his interpretation of B16’s Advent talk (with the by now standard use of phrases such as the *hermeneutic of reform in continuity* with the fear of a pre and post VII split as a PRINCIPLE;
    – his pages on Applications (interesting examples (Pickstock?) and interpretation – he appears to only look at the TLM as if it is the classic Roman Rite (there goes Jungmann’s study) while rejecting any talk about a *museum piece*
    – his interpretation of *alter Christus* not being about *me*, individualistic, subjective – really?
    – or his statement that B16 doesn’t want to visit any of the *controversial reforms* of VII on the older books – we do not need to fear that the 1962 Missal will be abrogated (sorry, he doesn’t know the future)
    – his redefinition of *ars celebrandi* as if the TLM is the baseline for all liturgical rites (and, again, the over-use of phrases such as *rightly understood*, etc. as if any other interpretation is inaccurate, incorrect, etc.

    This recent paper falls into the category of *advocacy* and not any type of proper research, analysis, etc. that is peer reviewed. It could be a talking paper for EWTN. One criticism of Paul VI was his tendency to appoint a liberal and then replace with a conservative or vice versa. What happened was that departmental directions went from one extreme to the other and were characterized by reaction rather than a well thought out developmental plan. Given that the worldwide conferences of bishops have repeatedly voiced concerns about this type of *advocacy* – why would you appoint the same *extreme* liturgical folks to the CDW especially after the experience of LA and RT?
    Is this just another part of the *implosion*?

  2. How sad – nothing like convening a management group that shares the same thinking process

    Except that they don’t? Roche, for instance was known for his restrictive stance on the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. Zielinski, on the other hand, is well known for his traditionalist leanings.

    multiculturalism – defined as a recent modern Western society movement (sorry, any careful study of civilizations would demonstrate that multiculturalism has been a significant feature, definer, and developer of civilizations)

    “Multiculturalism” as a goal, rather than an accident is surely a modern Western idea. (Contra, previous forms of interaction amongst cultures such imperialism.)

    goes on to pick and choose and thus qualify what he deems acceptable in these new diverse ways.

    You would never do that!

    the use of medieval vestments

    Pope Benedict has restored the use of vestments that are not medieval, but were used more recently and often were post-medieval developments. (This appears to be your mistake, not Zielinski’s.)

    equating papal liturgies as the guideline for all of the Western Rite (ceremonial & kneeling for communion);

    Papal liturgies are always looked to as exemplars. This was surely the case under Piero Marini as well, leading to praise and complaints. Now too, there are praise and complaints, though the parties are reversed. But the idea that these liturgies are exemplars is not particularly controversial. (Though this must be done carefully and mutatis mutandis given the special circumstances and law of Papal liturgies.)

    *young* communities that are attracted to the EF (really? insignificant per bishops and in the context of a world church);

    It’s definitely not insignificant in the amount of support it receives in the generation of clergy now in formation.

    1. ““Multiculturalism” as a goal, rather than an accident is surely a modern Western idea. (Contra, previous forms of interaction amongst cultures such imperialism.)”

      But isn’t St. Paul talking about the inclusion of all in Christ when he says,
      ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

      Isn’t he saying that none can be left out?

  3. SATIRE ALERT, SATIRE ALERT! IF YOU ARE AVERSE TO LESS THAN AN ULTIMATE AND ABSOLUTE STANDARD OF DIALECTIC AND DISCOURSE, READ NO FURTHER. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

    Paul, you’re telling me we now have a “Capo Ufficio” assigned?
    That’s it, the last straw, the seventh seal broken, proof of all that PTB has been shouting from the rooftops while I’ll have been deafened to your cries of reason.

    I just got my two new Shubb aircraft infused blue aluminum (BTW, it’s pronounced “ah-LOO-mih-nehm,” not “Al- yoo- MINEE- um) capos from Amazon, and my transpositions are now perfectly attuned. (Uh-TYOOND)
    It’s so good, it even works on the Rodgers digital organ!
    And now, you’re telling me I have to reference some curial capo because it’s “official?” Is outrage! Rubber bands and popsicle sticks, I might imagine.
    I’m definitely moving to Braemar…..

  4. Abbot Dom Michael John Zielinski, OSB Oliv. certainly hits the nail on the head in terms of the classical Roman Rite and the reform of its reform so desperately needed and underway today. This man knows what he’s talking about and has a road map to the reform of the reform so that we get a reformed Mass that Vatican II actually sought. The following excerpts are from him, not me and these tie in well with the most recent posts on PrayTell:

    “Yet today, we are acutely conscious of the fact that all has not
    been well in recent decades in respect of the cultural life of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. Western society has been suffering from a profound cultural crisis for some time and this has impacted on the Church. Indeed, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI himself, as Cardinal Ratzinger, expressed on a number of occasions his profound concern for the crisis in the cultus of the Church that we have experienced in the decades following the Second Vatican Council, from the “fabrication” of new rites, to the banalization of ecclesiastical music and the unprecedented re-ordering of the spatial arrangements of churches (see The Ratzinger Report [Ignatius, 1985], The Feast of Faith [Ignatius, 1986], The Spirit of the Liturgy [Ignatius, 2000]).

    It is possible to say that, in recent decades, much of the cultural
    heritage of the Church – from venerable rites to the many goods employed in their service – has been endangered by an ideology of novelty that has misunderstood if not rejected the profound respect for the tradition that genuine creativity in continuity with tradition had always understood. This of course, has not simply left us with an impoverished cultural experience in our churches. Most crucially, any impoverishment of the sacramentals themselves carries with it the danger of weakening the very encounter with the incarnate Lord which these rites and ritual things facilitate.

    The modern liturgy should stand in that same tradition and should be celebrated accordingly. But we know only too well, that in recent decades the modern liturgy has often not been offered as something in continuity with tradition, but as something radically new, different from “what we did before Vatican II,” as the saying goes. And this explains why today young people who have never known the older rites, and priests who have never celebrated them, discover something radically new and fresh in the older form of the Roman Rite. Where they have persevered in tilling the arid ground of rupture, they come to rejoice in the fertile soil of continuity.

    The Holy Father teaches by his personal example. As
    the celebrant of the liturgy it is clear that – in spite of the personal attention that people afford him due to his office – he strives to be the servant of the liturgy and not its proprietor. And in a simple yet undoubtedly crucial restoration – that of distributing Holy Communion to communicants kneeling at papal Masses – Pope Benedict has said once and for that all traditional ritual gestures and postures retain their value.

    The same principle can be applied to the Church’s treasury of
    sacred music and indeed of sacred architecture. This rich heritage which has lifted up countless hearts and minds to the contemplation of Almighty God over centuries has validity today, and whilst it is certainly living and capable of development through authentic enrichment, it is by no means to be jettisoned because it originated before a particular date. One only needs to recall the explicit but widely ignored call of the Second Vatican Council for Gregorian chant to “be given pride of place in liturgical services” to understand how much work needs to be done in reconnecting much modern practice with the Church’s heritage (see the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium [4 December 1963] §116).”

  5. Father Jielinski states “Yet today, we are acutely conscious of the fact that all has not been well in recent decades in respect of the cultural life of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church.” And further “It is possible to say that, in recent decades, much of the cultural
    heritage of the Church – from venerable rites to the many goods
    employed in their service – has been endangered by an ideology of
    novelty that has misunderstood if not rejected the profound respect
    for the tradition that genuine creativity in continuity with tradition
    had always understood. This of course, has not simply left us with
    an impoverished cultural experience in our churches.”

    I do not understand why the blame for this state of affairs is put on the recent history of the Church and on the “ideology of novelty”. Michaelangelo and the baroque masters certainly were trying to do new and did wonders. Since then, the Church has not been at the forefront of any artistic development. While the impressionists were reinventing painting, we were filling our churches with the worse possible pious artwork (I suffer every time I see a statue of Notre Dame de Lourdes, so sad!). Why put the blame on recent decades?

  6. A websearch also reveals that he presided at a Pontifical High Mass in the EF in April 2009 at the London Oratory.

    Scandalous! Doesn’t this man pay any attention to expert liturgists? I bet he eats babies as well.

    On a serious note, I would hope that everyone who works in the CDWDS knows and celebrates the sacraments in both forms of the Roman Rite. This would seem quite important given the main function and purpose of the congregation is the regulation and promotion of the liturgy!

  7. Why on earth would they do that? The use of the unreformed rite is only unrestricted for those who still celebrate private Masses. Surely, the members of the Roman Court gather for a con-celebrated Mass each day with their fellow servant leaders. A tiny sliver of the church’s membership has any interest at all in the Tridentine form of the Mass. I think of you take the one billion plus members of the Church worldwide, there are no more than a quarter of a million Tridentine enthusiasts. I’m being generous.

  8. Fr. Jack Feehily : Why on earth would they do that? The use of the unreformed rite is only unrestricted for those who still celebrate private Masses. Surely, the members of the Roman Court gather for a con-celebrated Mass each day with their fellow servant leaders. A tiny sliver of the church’s membership has any interest at all in the Tridentine form of the Mass. I think of you take the one billion plus members of the Church worldwide, there are no more than a quarter of a million Tridentine enthusiasts. I’m being generous.

    “A tiny sliver of the church’s membership has any interest at all in the Tridentine form of the Mass.” True, but I think they tend to be quite wealthy. Follow the money…..

  9. Why on earth would they do that?

    Perhaps because the extraordinary form is half of the Roman Rite? How can it be acceptable for clergy not to know half of their rite? The provision is now there for members of a parish to petition their pastor for Masses in the extraordinary form. If all clerics knew both how to say Mass in both forms of the Roman Rite, this pastoral and charitable provision would be easier to organise.

    A tiny sliver of the church’s membership has any interest at all in the Tridentine form of the Mass.

    And… your point is…?

    1. @Matthew Hazell – comment #13:
      (Re Jim’s comment) That “tiny sliver” is larger than the number of adherants to certain sui juris eastern rites within the Church, is the suggestion here that they don’t matter either?

  10. @Rose Ackerman (#13): you know, I didn’t know that either! Glad I’m not the only unknowledgeable one around here! 🙂

    @Daniel McKernan (#14): I would certainly hope that’s not the suggestion, but that’s where the logic of numbers leads us towards. It would be good if Fr Feehily could clarify what he meant by his remarks.

  11. Since this Abbot Zielinski osb oliv is presumably a ‘working abbot’ with an abbey to be responsible for, where is his abbey? Or do the Olivetian Benedictines allow even ex-abbots to keep the title? If so, where was his abbey?

      1. Samuel J. Howard – comment #19:

        Just a question: Four years does not seem to be a very long service as abbot according to the Benedictine Rule.

        Is Abbot Zielinski still officially abbot at Pecos NM? or has he moved on to another abbey also as abbot?. I notice that the photo published in one of the linked articles has him in the ‘normal’ black OSB habit — has he changed his ‘vow of stability’ from the Olievetans to another congregation — in which he is also an abbot of a monastery? I am just curious as to his present status as a Benedictine and as an abbot.

  12. The word is “Olivetan”, actually, not Olivetian. It’s pronounced with a long ‘e’: Olive-eaten.

    And while he was at Pecos, some monks lived outside the community (I am told). Some have since returned.

  13. Matthew Hazell : Perhaps because the extraordinary form is half of the Roman Rite? How can it be acceptable for clergy not to know half of their rite? The provision is now there for members of a parish to petition their pastor for Masses in the extraordinary form. If all clerics knew both how to say Mass in both forms of the Roman Rite, this pastoral and charitable provision would be easier to organise.

    This, I am afraid, is a very commonly-encountered misunderstanding.

    (1) The provision is there for members of a parish to petition their pastor for Masses in the extraordinary form if they have previously been used to having it, and feel that their spirituality is lacking without it. It is not a blanket permission. Benedict XVI himself said that this will only apply to a very small number of people, and that for most people the Ordinary Form will continue to be the norm. (Interview en route for France, September 12, 2008)

    (2) It does not give permission to proselytise in an attempt to draw in new adherents. It is only for existing adherents who feel deprived.

    (3) It does not give permission to claim that the Extraordionary Form is on a par with the Ordinary Form. The EF permission is only, once again, for a small number of people who have not been able to let go of that form. It is, as its title declares, extra-ordinary (i.e. abnormal). It is not “half of the Roman Rite”; it is a minority manifestation of the Roman Rite.

    (4) Similarly, it does not give permission to claim (as most of its adherents seem to do) that the Ordinary Form is merely tolerated, and that the Extraordinary Form is the only true form, which should replace the Ordinary Form whenever possible. The Ordinary Form is normative; the Extraordinary Form is the exception, not the rule.

    If only people were clear about all this, a lot of arguments could be avoided.

  14. Paul Inwood :

    (1) The provision is there for members of a parish to petition their pastor for Masses in the extraordinary form if they have previously been used to having it, and feel that their spirituality is lacking without it. It is not a blanket permission.

    No, it’s not a blanket permission, there are clear conditions. But what you wrote before that is complete nonsense. Nowhere in the legislation does it say that they must have previously been used to having it.

    (2) It does not give permission to proselytise in an attempt to draw in new adherents. It is only for existing adherents who feel deprived.

    Of course it doesn’t give permission. No permission is needed. The second part is again complete nonsense.

    (3) It does not give permission to claim that the Extraordionary Form is on a par with the Ordinary Form. The EF permission is only, once again, for a small number of people who have not been able to let go of that form.

    Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it true. No one in their right mind would say that the two forms are on an equal juridical footing. People who adhere to the EF are well aware of the roadblocks people put, both legally legitimate and fictional, in the way of its wider celebration.

    1. To document it…

      Must the group have existed before Summorum Pontificum?

      No, as Universae Ecclesiae says:

      A coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”) can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel; such a coetus (“group”) can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.

      The instruction also says explicitly that Summorum Pontificum is not targeted only at those previously attached to the EF, but “has the aim of … offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved.

  15. Samuel,

    I’m afraid your saying something is nonsense does not make it so. All people have to do is read the documentation, not imagine that it says what they’d like it to say.

    1. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #25:

      Paul already offered documentation, from which the following comes:

      this “Motu Proprio’ is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy.

      Paul never spoke of a “group” but only of the people that could make up the group that seeks permission. As UE says, they have a veneration for the EF before they form a group, largely the same as Paul described.

      1. @Jim McKay – comment #26:

        Not largely the same. Paul seems to suggest someone of my age, born after 1970, is unable to request an EF mass (or form part of a group which does so). However, nothing in UE which has been quoted provides support for that statement.

        Where does it say that an EF attending friend can not bring me to an EF mass tomorrow, after which I form a veneration for the EF, and thereafter join a group request an EF mass?

        If you can’t provide that, then Paul’s rhetoric is misleading. In fact, from reading Paul’s comments here and elsewhere, this is a common problem when he pretends to expertise on canon law.

      2. @Scott Smith – comment #27:

        I may have been unclear.
        Benedict XVI said
        this “Motu Proprio’ is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy.

        This in no way precludes members of a new generation coming to familiarity and love of the EF IMO. It might be meant to discourage people who are attracted to the EF as a novelty, something different from the familiar OF, but even that is probably a stretch. Benedict, and Paul in citing him, probably mean the same as UE, that people who are familiar with and love the EF can form groups to request it. Benedict observed that this is a small number of people, something that is no doubt true of both those brought up with the EF and those of a younger generation.

      3. @Jim McKay – comment #35:

        Much clearer – Thank you.

        Put that way, I agree with you. I am not sure that is what Paul is saying, but I suppose he can speak for himself.

  16. It would be remiss of me to point out that Mr Inwood has previous form in running down Summorum Pontificum. The linked piece did not end up being published in the newspaper of the Diocese of Portsmouth, but it seems that hasn’t stopped Mr Inwood promulgating his misinterpretations for the last 5 years.

    @Paul Inwood (#21): you use some concerning turns of phrase, especially given your position in the Diocese of Portsmouth. For example:

    ** It is, as its title declares, extra-ordinary (i.e. abnormal) (since when does extraordinary imply abnormal? Should we infer that you think those faithful who attend the EF are also “abnormal”?)

    ** The EF permission is only… for a small number of people who have not been able to let go of that form (the – rather modern – assumption being that they ought to grow up and do so…?)

    ** It does not give permission to proselytise in an attempt to draw in new adherents (so you’re saying that a member of the faithful who attends the EF can’t bring their non-Catholic friends to Mass, as if evangelisation can only be done with the ordinary form? What utter rubbish!)

    ** It is not “half of the Roman Rite”; it is a minority manifestation of the Roman Rite. (basic maths: two forms of Mass, one being the OF, one being the EF; half of two is one; therefore the OF is half of the Roman Rite, and the EF is half of the Roman Rite. It is still half of the Rite, regardless of how “minority” it is.)

    Very little of what you say seems very pastoral or charitable towards those who attend a different form of Mass than you do. There’s evidently something you find threatening about the EF – I’m just at a loss as to what that something is.

    1. @Matthew Hazell – comment #28:

      Merrimack Webster gives 3 definitions of “rite”:
      1 a prescribed form or manner governing the words or actions for a ceremony
      b : the ceremonial practices of a church or group of churches
      2: a ceremonial act or action
      3: a division of the Christian church using a distinctive liturgy

      The EF might be half of the prescribed forms of the Roman church. It is not half of the Eucharists we celebrate, #2. And it is in no way a division of the Roman Rite, as in contrast to the Maronite Rite or other Eastern Rites, #3. I think your position actually relies on the unity of the Roman Rite, which has two forms of expression.

  17. Matthew,

    I post here on this blog as an individual, as does everyone else who posts here.

    You began all this with the misleading phrase “half of the Roman Rite”. My response has nothing to do with being unpastoral or uncharitable. I grew up with the Tridentine Mass, even trained altar servers for it, and I do not find it threatening, although it seems that you and Samuel find the truth about the legislation threatening. My response has everything to do with accuracy of interpreting the documents. Much damage has been done by proponents of the legislation going further than its provisions.

    As far as the word “extraordinary” is concerned, it means “out of the ordinary”, or “not normal”, “not usual” — i.e. “abnormal” or “unusual”. It is a technical term, not a reflection on the state of mind of anyone, and as you know is also used by some for commissioned lay ministers of Holy Communion. The problem is that both “extraordinary” and “abnormal” have other connotations for us today, because we are not used to the technical term. That is why it is not very helpful to use that term, in my view, even if EF is a useful shorthand descriptor.

    1. @Paul Inwood – comment #29:

      I post here on this blog as an individual, as does everyone else who posts here.

      No doubt. But people’s positions do matter, though. I’m sure that Dom Zielinski gave his paper on Culture and Heritage of the Classical Roman Rite as an individual as well, yet that doesn’t seem to have stopped you joining some dots in the original post (dots that Bill deHaas proceeded to keep on joining in the very first comment).

      You began all this with the misleading phrase “half of the Roman Rite”.

      You have yet to make a case for this being a misleading phrase. If there are now two forms of the Roman Rite, logically one or the other of those forms constitutes half the Rite, no?

      My response has nothing to do with being unpastoral or uncharitable.

      That’s perhaps a matter of opinion. SP and UE are there for all to read and see that the sort of unpastoral restrictions (for that is what they are) you would impose on the EF are not warranted. It’s a matter of particular concern for me that anyone, let alone someone in your position, would imply that permission has not been given – indeed, that it’s even needed in the first place! – for those faithful who attend the EF to evangelise their friends and families through the EF.

      All things being equal, I’d rather let PCED interpret SC and UE, thank you very much.

      1. @Matthew Hazell – comment #33:

        If there are now two forms of the Roman Rite, logically one or the other of those forms constitutes half the Rite, no?

        No, not as long as one of those forms is ordinary or normative, and the other is extra-ordinary and therefore not normative. One form is the normal or usual form; the other is the exceptional or ab-normal form.

        Your logic would only stand up if the two forms were both ordinary forms or options. They clearly are not.

        The fact that they are both allowed to co-exist does not give them parity, as I indicated in my original post above (#21, point 3).

        I’m sure that Dom Zielinski gave his paper on Culture and Heritage of the Classical Roman Rite as an individual as well

        I’m sure he did. I am giving a paper at a conference next week in Ireland. I have been invited to do so as an individual liturgist with a particular area of expertise, not because I happen to work in a particular place. There’s a world of difference between making a statement as a representative of a particular organisation and making a statement as an individual with a right to an opinion.

        Blogs are places where people tend to say what they think. They are not pushing anyone’s party line but their own, unless they specifically state that they are talking on behalf of someone or something else.

  18. I do not find it threatening, although it seems that you and Samuel find the truth about the legislation threatening

    Paul, I don’t find the truth about the legislation threatening. I’ve cited the text of the legislation and it backs my interpretation not yours, something you have not responded to.

    Jim McKay, that needs to be read in conjunction with the legislaion as I have quoted it. Scott Smith responds as I would to the question of how Paul’s view is not that in UE.

    1. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #31:

      I’ve cited the text of the legislation and it backs my interpretation not yours, something you have not responded to.

      I see nothing in what you have quoted, nor in any of the rest of the documentation, that backs your interpretation of it. The phrase “even after the Motu Proprio”, which I assume you are relying on, does not mean what you appear to think it to mean. Clearly we must agree to differ on this.

  19. What do the quoted provisions mean then? How am I misinterpreting the document? You’re just asserting that my reading is wrong, but you don’t explain how I’ve misinterpreted it.

    You wrote:

    “The provision is there for members of a parish to petition their pastor for Masses in the extraordinary form if they have previously been used to having it

    Let’s focus on this. Where is that condition required in the documents?

    1. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #38:

      Sam,

      We are agreeing to differ, so this will be my last post on this topic as life has to go on elsewhere and I have many other things that I need to attend to.

      It is not my fault that you do not know the difference between the adverb continenter which was originally used in SP and the adverb stabiliter which was eventually substituted for it in the Latin text. Nor that you do not know the meaning and implications of the word stabiliter, as outlined by the world’s premier liturgical canonist when he was commenting on this document on its appearance in its first and amended forms in 2007. You think the text means one thing. The legislator thinks it means something different (and I agree). End of story. Let’s just leave it there. Thank you.

      1. @Paul Inwood – comment #39:

        Paul, elsewhere on the internet, the custom is that you concede when you can not support your argument for whatever reason.

        By treating your own (and other unnamed) opinions as authority, you appear to have reached that point.

        I think therefore we are entitled to deem your last post as a concession.

      2. @Paul Inwood – comment #39:

        Nor that you do not know the meaning and implications of the word stabiliter, as outlined by the world’s premier liturgical canonist when he was commenting on this document on its appearance in its first and amended forms in 2007

        2007 is not the end of the story. We have clarification in the form of UE in 2011. This is the interpretation of the text of SP that is binding. Not that of an anonymous canonist in 2007.

        You’re free to not respond to the substantive points I’ve raised, but that’s hardly “agreement to differ.”

        You wrote in your initial response to Summorum Pontificum:

        “Under the terms of the Motu Proprio, only those who have a history of celebrating in, or mounting pressure for celebrations in, the Tridentine rite may request such a celebration from a parish priest. In other words, this rite must be to an extent normative for them, not a novelty. What this means in practice is that people cannot now decide that they want a Tridentine celebration and ask for it. They have to have been celebrating in that rite, or have pressured for it, continuously (the Latin word is continenter, changed from stabiliter in the final version).”

        (It turned out you were wrong about the final Latin.)

        You maintain that interpretation here. But it’s contradicted by UE:

        “A coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”) can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel; such a coetus (“group”) can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.”

      3. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #42:

        This is old, old ground, and you evidently did not follow it closely. The Latin was originally continenter, then changed to stabiliter, then changed back to continenter, then once again to stabiliter. What a farce.

        I simply quote a canonical judgement regarding this whole mess:

        “Stably” refers to something that is stable in the law, like an ecclesiastical office, function, or circumscription. Its use for an undefined group of faithful in a parish does not fit in with this notion, and it could lead to misunderstandings and disagreements due to subjective interpretations of what constitutes a stable group.

        This is precisely what has happened, and what is still happening now, as evidenced by this part of this thread. What UE says does not change that one iota. Try to believe it.

        Finis.

      4. @Paul Inwood – comment #43:

        What a farce.

        Farce or not, you have to deal with what the legislation, all the legislation, actually says in the official final versions.

        I simply quote a canonical judgement regarding this whole mess:

        No. You quote from an anonymous canonical judgment from 2007. The “whole mess” includes Universae Ecclesiae, which was issued in 2011.

        What UE says does not change that one iota. Try to believe it.

        Make an argument, that’s the way to persuade people, not to just order them. There was significant debate about the nature of the “stable group”. That’s why Universae Ecclesiae offers an explanation, an explanation that explicitly contradicts your reading of Summorum Pontificum that the stable group must have been in existence before the issuance of Summorum Pontificum.

  20. @Jim McKay (#34): The EF might be half of the prescribed forms of the Roman church. It is not half of the Eucharists we celebrate…

    Saying that the EF is half of the Roman Rite does not require saying it is exactly half of the total number of Masses celebrated.

    @Paul Inwood (#36): Your logic would only stand up if the two forms were both ordinary forms or options. They clearly are not.

    I don’t see why the logic requires your extraneous condition. One rite, two forms: ergo, one of those forms equals half of the rite. It’s really that simple.

    What you’re doing, for reasons known only to yourself, is subordinating the maths to your ideology: i.e. The fact that they are both allowed to co-exist does not give them parity, as I indicated in my original post above (#21, point 3). The OF Mass is a Mass. The EF Mass is a Mass. SP and UE allow the priest and people in parishes to have both OF and EF Masses freely available, as the parish pastorally requires. Unless you’re speaking of numeric parity (in which case, see my reply to Jim McKay just above), I don’t understand what your point is.

    Still, as I pointed out above, you have previous form in running down SP. The real question for me is not about what you say and write re. SP, but why you do so.

    (As an aside, I’d be interested in your response to the Chairman of the LMS, Joseph Shaw, at his blog.)

    1. @Matthew Hazell – comment #45:
      Matthew, I’m afraid I’ll have to back Paul on the point of the EF being half the Latin rite, afterall we also have Braga (in 2 forms), Ambrosian (in 2 dorms), Dominican (in only the old form, there is no Novus Ordo version), Mozarabic, Carthusian, Carmelite, etc.

      There some rough and ready sense in which what you say is true, I suppose, but it’s not worth going to the mattresses for.

  21. There is little value, I think, in debating whether the Tridentine Mass has been abrogated. I think Pope Paul VI meant to do so, and that he should have done. Perhaps, juridically, he did abrogate it. But it’s not easy for a pope to bind his successors — a good thing, too, or Quo Primum might have stopped today’s normative Mass from ever emerging.

    For good or for ill, Pope Benedict has “unabrogated” the Tridentine Mass, not only through his letters motu proprio but by his promotion of prelates like Burke. That seems a fact, regrettable perhaps, but a fact.

    Turning to Abbot Zielinkski’s essay: what a disappointment. Yet another banal recitation of the old shibboleths — hermeneutic of continuity, young priests, ideology of novelty, etc.

    And the dodgy etymology of ‘culture’ from Latin cultus; the words are only marginally related, through the 4th principal part of coleo. If anything, ‘culture’ has more to do with gardening than with worship. You might think that Zielinski has been perusing a well-known traddie website, where the same platitudes and the same faux-ami etymology of ‘culture’ get trotted out, again and again.

    He edges up to an interesting bit of Pickstock’s After Writing, “Such a wealth of signification bespeaks the sign which is also a person, and a people, a body which is dispersed through time as gift, peace, and the possibility of a future.” From this he takes away a truly banal conclusion: it is ‘a hymn’ to the Tridentine Mass.

    The question he never addresses is: how do these symbols, how does this ‘wealth of signification’ actually work in the Tridentine Mass, with today’s assemblies? And how has the pattern of signification changed in the new Mass? Zielinski seems blind to issues of symbol (a word that never appears in his essay) or sign.

    There are rich questions here, with potential to shed light on translation and on styles of celebration. But Zielinski consistently fails to ask them.

    1. @Jonathan Day – comment #46:
      What I have noticed with those who participate in our EF Mass, monthly as high and every Tuesday as Low, is that once they have it in their blood it does what the good Abbott makes clear: “Our dependence upon it is not only to enunciate our belief in an educative or formative sense, but it is in
      fact essential to our Christian life in order to join us sacramentally with him whom we worship and to nourish the life of grace in the soul. The life of the Christian is marked by worship, it is immersed in the divine cultus. This is precisely the point made by Pope St Pius X in his seminal Motu Proprio Tra le sollecitudini of 22 November 1903 when he spoke of the “active participation in the holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church” being the “indispensable fount” of “the true Christian spirit.”

      While signs and symbols and the dissecting of words and their meaning are important, they are not more important than, “to join us sacramentally with him whom we worship and to nourish the life of grace in the soul.”

      That truth being made ultimately clear is what is missing in so much of the non-reform of the reform crowd.

    2. @Jonathan Day – comment #46:

      Jonathan: And the dodgy etymology of ‘culture’ from Latin cultus; the words are only marginally related, through the 4th principal part of coleo. If anything, ‘culture’ has more to do with gardening than with worship.

      The link between agriculture and cultus (first principal part coleo or colo? coleo later Latin?) is never lost on the Romans. Consider Cato or Varro — ritual sacrifice is the source of harvest. Although Roman agricultural augury and sacrifice is empirically absurd for many today, in Roman eyes and minds no separation exists between cultus as plow and scythe and cultus as a ritual performance designed to provide sustenance. Roman agriculture and worship work symbiotically to order human progress and survival.

      Abt. Zelinski’s quotation of Dr. Pickstock reveals a very modern understanding of cultus similar in some respects to Roman cultus. Pickstock’s depiction of the medieval Mass as a “sign” is in some ways akin to the influence of Roman agricultural manuals today. The difference lies in timeframe and continuity: Roman agricultural augury and sacrifice no longer exists, while the cultus of the Tridentine recension of the medieval liturgy is still practiced. Nevertheless, both cultus maintain both a sign-value (a static interpretation) and a performative meaning, current or not. The notion that the EF is still under cultivation is not at all incongruous from a modern standpoint — that is, static concepts influence past and current performances.

    3. @Jonathan Day – comment #46:

      The question he never addresses is: how do these symbols, how does this ‘wealth of signification’ actually work in the Tridentine Mass, with today’s assemblies? And how has the pattern of signification changed in the new Mass? Zielinski seems blind to issues of symbol (a word that never appears in his essay) or sign.

      There are rich questions here, with potential to shed light on translation and on styles of celebration. But Zielinski consistently fails to ask them.

      Thank you, Jonathan, for this important intervention — much more worthwhile to talk about these things than petty squabbles about the interpretation of Vatican documents and commentaries on them! It’s worthy of a separate thread, IMHO.

  22. Jonathan – well said; it follows from my first post. (if you figure out what Allan just posted, let me know. Would suggest that we have come a long way in understanding symbol, ritual, etc. since 1903)

    Have always wondered about comparing EF to other rites. It is not another rite – it is an *extraordinary* form of the Western Rite.

    It appears to me, IMO, that a significant justification for the EF is that it is a rite and should be permitted, if not encouraged, because it is wanted by a group along the lines of enculturation. So, there is an EF culture on pare with cultures such as Asian, African, Central America, South America in all of their manifestations.

    The question for me is that cultures through history were based upon language, a geographic area and people who had developed cultural mores, etc. Not sure that the EF is this type of enculturation – it is not based upon a geographic culture; language (other than Latin); societal mores, etc. Rather, it is based upon a 16th century liturgical style and rite. It fits more closely to some of the *exceptions* such as liturgical forms that were permitted to religious communities.

  23. Matthew Hazell : @Jim McKay (#34): The EF might be half of the prescribed forms of the Roman church. It is not half of the Eucharists we celebrate… Saying that the EF is half of the Roman Rite does not require saying it is exactly half of the total number of Masses celebrated.

    Hey! That was my point.
    Saying half of definition #1(the forms) is not the same as saying half of definition #2 (the celebrations). And neither is the same as saying half of definition #3 (the division of the Church).

    Insisting on a single definition, without attending to other possible meanings, is a way to stir up confusion. I pretty much agree that the EF is half the ritual forms, but that seems irrelevant to me. If half the words in English are technical jargon for various fields, does that mean an English teacher has to know all of them? If not, then why would every priest have to learn all of the forms of the liturgy? (that is where this discussion started)

    I”pretty much agree” because I am still thinking about SJH’s remark on the Ambrosian and other rites in the West.

  24. With respect, Fr Allan, that won’t do. It is fine to say, the experience of the Tridentine Mass surpasses any attempt to discuss it, so go to Mass and you will see the truth, beyond any need to talk about “signs and symbols and the dissecting of words and their meaning”.

    But this is a discussion forum. Our access to truth here is entirely through words, discussions of “”signs and symbols and the dissecting of words and their meaning”. Otherwise all conversation stops: “It was such a good party, but you have to have been there to understand why.” True, perhaps, but it closes the conversation.

    St Thomas Aquinas may ultimately have decided that everything he had written was like straw, but he first wrote a big pile of commentaries, sermons, disputed questions — not to mention a few Summas.

    1. @Jonathan Day – comment #51:
      I’m saying that those who study the EF Mass with its powerful signs and symbols, which are many, as well as participate in it regularly where it gets into their blood and spirituality get it. But if someone who has never attended one or has never studied it, they won’t get it–but they will get what the Diocese of Trenton’s Newspaper described as Trenton’s first Pontifical Solemn Sung Mass by their bishop and I quote:
      The beauty, reverence, splendor and awe of a traditional Latin Mass was reflected in its highest form in the Diocese of Trenton Nov. 27 as Bishop David M. O’Connell, C.M., celebrated a Solemn Pontifical High Mass in St. Hedwig Church, Trenton.

  25. Hello Jonathan,

    “…how does this ‘wealth of signification’ actually work in the Tridentine Mass, with today’s assemblies?”

    If it does not work well with today’s assemblies – a categorical assertion even I am uncomfortable making – then so much the worse for the assemblies, not for the traditional mass (which is – say it with me again – older than Trent).

    This is not to deny the the need for pastoral sensitivity in presenting the Gospel to diverse audiences. But the Truth can’t be shaded or altered. The Church exists to save souls – to save as many souls as possible. That is what the sacraments are for. And too often, the Pauline missal, even at its most reverent, downplays that reality.

    Is it just the Latin? That can be addressed. But I think it’s pretty clear that for many reformers, the problems with the traditional mass in how its symbols work with “today’s assemblies” went/still go far beyond that.

    But I agree with you on this much: I do think Paul VI did mean to abrogate the old mass, subject to minor and presumably temporary and transitional indults.

    1. @Richard Malcolm – comment #55:
      Richard — interesting point. However I was trying to pose a different question: not “how well does it work” but “in what manner does it work”? What do the various symbols of the Tridentine Mass (e.g. the solita oscula, kissing the hand of the celebrant) actually convey to a modern assembly?

      I can see why you interpreted my poorly-framed question as you did.

      The most systematic presentation I have seen regarding revision of the Latin prayers for the Novus Ordo is in Lauren Pristas’s work. As just one example, there were certain themes (such as “subjection”) that were simply removed from the older Latin collects. Before we tackle the question of “was this a good thing or a bad thing”? I think it’s useful to ask “from the perspective of people in the pews, what did these older words actually convey?

      A little googling will find you copies of the following papers by Pristas:

      Theological Principles that Guided the Redaction of the Roman Missal (1970)

      The Orations of the Vatican II Missal: Policies for Revision

      The Collects at Sunday Mass: An Examination of the Revisions of Vatican II

  26. Regarding abrogation, we have had this discussion before. Here once again is Pierre Jounel in Voices from the Council:

    What would you say to those people who don’t want to know the Missal of Paul VI, and to those who, while respecting it, regret that it was imposed to the exclusion of the Tridentine Missal?

    “I would say to them that they use computers, that they live with the instruments of the culture of their time, and that they have no reason to get stuck on the 1570 date when the Missal of Pius V was promulgated. Why should the liturgy be frozen then, when it had been periodically renewed up to that date? These people lack historical knowledge. Msgr Lefebvre was absolutely convinced that the ancient formula for Confirmation goes back to the time of the apostles, when in fact it only dates back to the 13th century.”

    Jounel then goes on to demonstrate how Paul VI followed exactly the same procedure [my emphasis] with his Missal as Pius V had with the Missal and Breviary in 1570, Clement VIII in 1595 with the Roman Pontifical, Pius X with the psalter of the Breviary in 1911, and Pius XII with the Holy Week rites in 1955. In all these cases, the previous usage was abrogated and replaced by the new. This is, he says, the Church’s constant practice.

    1. @Paul Inwood – comment #56:
      Paul
      In the light of comment 46 in which Jonathan Day seems to suggest that there is little point in arguing about whether the former form of the mass was abrogated I wonder if you would explain why it does matter?
      I fully appreciate that you would wish to correct an error posted by a fellow commenter. Is that it or is there more to it?
      In asking I offer no criticism of any of the protagonists in the discussion. You may have seen my earlier post in which I suggested that the desire to use this might not have been anticipated. I claim less knowledge than most of those posting.
      Many thanks
      Peter

  27. Peter – would suggest that the *hermeneutic of reform within continuity* argument has been used to cover or justify certain meaures to minimize or dilute the council fathers’ decisions – liturgy is a prime example.

    To this point – note the Paul Inwood has simply stated the historical facts and chronology of other church periods in which popes/councils reformed prior missals. The church history or pattern is to *abrogate* the earlier missal. You can reasonably conclude that those who state that the 1962 missal was not abrogated are actually practicing a hermeneutic of *rupture* rather than a hermeneutic of reform within continuity. (yet, you will see some here that will dispute this offering different explanations, rationalizations, brief quotes taken out of context, etc.) They are rewriting history and historical patterns by claiming that the church has often kept multiple missals – e.g. that certain rites were approved to continue; some exceptions were given by Paul VI, JPII, etc. How these small exceptions are equivalent to the church’s total use of one missal is never really explained.

    So, now the *hermeneutic of reform within continuity* explain that the Western Rite has two forms (and this is continuity?).

    Wonder if Jonathan is just stating that this argument has been repeated multiple times on the PTB blog – each side has dug in and it will not get us anywhere.

    What we have seen since 1970 is a progressive process that went from Paul VI’s cautionary mid-1960s statement that abrogated the 62 missal but allowed older priests, folks for serious spiritual reasons to continue to use the 62 missal. i.e. Agatha Christi indult (for one conference in the world – does that make a justifying argument?); JPII’s expansions (early and late in his pontificate); and B16’s setting up two forms of the one rite (in opposition to almost unanimous episcopal conferences asking that he not do that; his own efforts in now waging an *interpretational* debate to justify theologically and philosophically his own opinions.

    Another perspective from Michael Sean Winters:
    http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/remembering-and-mis-remembering-vatican-ii
    My quibble with Winters is that he starts well and gives a good BIG picture but he ignores the last 20 years and skews the impact of Ratzinger in terms of Communio and his roles as CDW head and then pope. To say simply that Ratzinger’s impact and decisions over the last 20 years are equal to examples such as Rahner, Congar, etc. indicates a naive historical and political dimension in his analysis. He also ignores realities such as the 1983 Canon Law, what has happened to Synods, what happened to collegiality, and how episcopal conferences have been stripped of their own liturgical rights per Vatican II.

  28. Dear Bill
    Thank you for your answer: 58 above. I am not sure I fully understand.
    First, I appreciate that many think that the greater use of the EF permitted by SP was misguided.
    Second, many may think that this represents an attempt to alter the way of worship practiced since the Council.
    Third, some seem to me to argue that the point above means that SP was, in some sense, illicit.
    But none of these arguments, however true, alter the analysis of whether or not there was a formal abrogation of the 1962 missal.
    As you say the argument on this blog as to whether there was an abrogation becomes a tit for tat exchange lacking the courtesy we should seek. That may well be a reason not to raise the subject.
    I am struggling to understand why it matters. If Jonathan Day is correct that the 1962 Missal is simply unabrogated then the argument is about whether it was abrogated between 1969 and SP (or earlier by JPII or earlier still depending on indult).
    My guess is that the reason for insisting that it was abrogated for that period is to assert that this makes SP, in some sense illicit, that, given the abrogation then, there was no authority to unabrogate.
    Those who dislike use of the EF thus argue both that it was unwise / unhelpful / poor practice to permit it and that it was, in some sense, beyond the authority of the Pope to permit greater use of the EF.
    Have I understood the motive correctly?

    I do take your point about each minor update of the Missal thus cancelling the prior version of the Missal. I think that the thinking here is that the 1969 update was a large ‘minor’ update rather than the issue of a brand new Missal. I am not sure that this is conclusive but it would be tedious to explain. Certainly the expectation was that the older form would fall out of use one way or another.
    Cheers
    Peter

  29. Bill and Peter, my point is simple and pragmatic. Whether or not the Missal of 1962 was at one point abrogated, Pope Benedict has now given permission for its wider use. I would not have done so, but then (thank God) I am not the pope.

    A pope can override most decisions of his predecessors. As I wrote earlier, it is a good thing that he can — it leaves the Church able to correct the inevitable missteps.

    I would be happy if a future pope placed Summorum Pontificum and associated documents back on the shelf, like the motu proprio of Paul III, Confirmatio Statutorum — excerpt:

    we enact and decree in perpetuity that slaves who flee to the Capital and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be freed from the bondage of their servitude … but they shall be returned in slavery to their owners, and if it seems proper they shall be punished as runaways

    So Benedict XVI had the right to change an earlier pope’s decision, and a later pope could change Benedict XVI’s.

  30. Hello Jonathan,

    I’ve also read Lauren Pristas’s articles on the changes to the collects and propers from the TLM to the NO – she does avoid digging much into motives, but she does highlight the shift in language – not just idioms but, as she rightly points out, theological emphasis as well – that takes place in the new collects.

    I understand better now what you’re asking. Obviously there’s a wealth of prayers to work with – enough to justify a monograph. Are there specific expressions – beyond the solita oscula – that you had in mind as potentially problematic in how they might be received by…modern congregants?

  31. Jonathan,

    So Benedict XVI had the right to change an earlier pope’s decision, and a later pope could change Benedict XVI’s.

    I think he could as well. I don’t see anything in law preventing him from doing so.

    But that seems unlikely, given the growing constellation of Ecclesia Dei societies and increasing interest in the traditional mass among the younger clergy (and, in some cases, even some younger bishops) – a hornet’s nest that the next pope would likely be unwilling to kick.

    I noted up above that I thought that Paul VI likely did *mean* to abrogate (subject to the well known temporary indults for older priests, the “Agatha Christie indult”, etc.) the 1962 missal (as modified subsequently in 1965, etc.). Whether he actually did so is open to debate. The commission of Cardinals that examined the question back in 1985 thought it had not been. But arguments have been made both ways. I confined my observation merely to what I perceived as the intentions of Paul VI.

  32. Thanks, Jonathan….will only add one item: Paul VI’s abrogation was based upon the principles, documents, and directives of the council fathers. Not sure that B16’s decisions have necessarily followed the council fathers’ directives.
    So, yes, a pope can do anything – but see a significant difference in terms of organizational, conciliar, and sensus fidelium between Paul VI and B16.

  33. Hi Richard — let me try again: I am, at this stage at least, entirely uninterested in whether this or that symbol (word, ritual, gesture, vessel, vestment, etc) is “problematic”, a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.

    In my view a prior and essential question is, very simply, what does the symbol actually connote to those in the assembly? How do they interpret it? What do they say about it? Are there divergent interpretations in the assembly?

    Examples — in addition to the solita oscula might be the “closed sanctuary/presbyterium”, the maniple, the practice of preaching the sermon outside the sanctuary (“the Mass has been suspended for the duration of the homily”), folded chasubles, the prescribed number of swings of the censer at various incensations, the practice of vesting a bishop in front of the people, putting on and taking off mitres, birettas and other liturgical hats, the cappa magna, etc.

    These symbols don’t interpret themselves. What, for today’s assemblies, do they signify?

    1. @Jonathan Day – comment #65:

      Jonathan, I understand and agree with your interpretation of the role of the homily in the EF. I suppose one could say that the EF has a sermon while the OF has a homily, to be more specific. However, there was (and in some places still is) a practical reason for a celebrant to pause the Mass and leave the sanctuary for the sermon/homily. Early modern pulpits in churches of all western traditions were often placed at the middle-left or middle-right of the nave for acoustic reasons. In many places with a “traditional pulpit” a secondary microphone amplified pulpit has been placed in the sanctuary in front of the people, but this is by no means universal. I have been to not a few Masses, OF and EF, where the preacher will use the traditional pulpit, now often electronically amplified.

      While from a semiotic standpoint I agree that that many persons might be more comfortable with a preacher who faces them, this preference is a relatively new phenomenon in many places. Also, I wonder if this preference has been conditioned by the invention of electronic amplification, and not an innate preference. Personally, I have never felt excluded, nor have I had trouble understanding, a preacher who has been out of my line of sight.

  34. Bill, Jonathan and Richard
    Thank you all. What I wondered was why it was argued so keenly that there was an abrogation. I dare not argue whether there was or was not an abrogation.
    I wonder if the formal statement of an abrogation might have implied that Masses in the old form were deficient. To say that something was pleasing to God yesterday but hurtful to him the next would have strained our understanding. So there might have been a reason to avoid terms that were sufficiently explicit as to solve this sort of query.
    I think that BXVI would argue that a Pope cannot do whatever he chooses. I understood that he said that it was not in his power to permit ordination of women. I also understand, on a quite different plane, that he was not allowed to take his cats into the Vatican on election. That reminds me of Chris Patten, as Governor of Hong Kong, changing the rules on quarantine and lamenting his inability to ease the rules for his own pets on their return to the UK. Whisky and Soda they were called. I wonder why.

  35. Hello Peter,

    I wonder if the formal statement of an abrogation might have implied that Masses in the old form were deficient. To say that something was pleasing to God yesterday but hurtful to him the next would have strained our understanding. So there might have been a reason to avoid terms that were sufficiently explicit as to solve this sort of query.

    Well, I think that if you look at this in juridical terms, you can avoid such judgments. It would, indeed, be ludicrous to declare (or appear to declare) that a mass once so pleasing to God was now considered displeasing. There might be some hardline progressives who really do think that way about the traditional mass, but that’s not what Paul VI meant to say if indeed he considered the 1962 editio typica abrogated.

    Instead, I presume he thought of it much like what happened in, say, 1962, 1920, 1884, or 1570 – each time a new editio typica was promulgated by a pontiff, the old one was in some real sense superseded. The 1970 novus ordo editio typica was thus held to supersede the 1962 and its variants in 1965 and 1967, subject to certain indults and allowances.

    But it does get trickier with the latter. The CDW did not issue the “indults” for elderly priests and for England until June 14, 1971 and November 5, 1971, respectively, which raises the juridical question of just what the status was of the older editio typica in the two years between the promulgation of the Pauline mass and the issuance of those indults. More interestingly, the elderly priest indult allowed only for use of the so-called 1967 Missal, while the English indult was limited to the so-called 1965 Missal. And what is more, it seems that neither the 1965 Missal nor the 1967 Missal was ever officially promulgated as a replacement for the 1962 Missal.

    All of which did, in fact, leave real uncertainty about the status of 1962, whatever Paul VI’s intentions…

  36. I don’t want to continue pushing the abrogation thing, but in the end it’s not about whether you like or dislike the OF or the EF, it’s about truth.

    It seems perfectly clear, from analysis at the time (which was fairly substantial) and from what has transpired since, that Paul VI did abrogate previous usages, and that he did so in exactly the same way as his predecessors across the centuries had abrogated previous usages (see Jounel quote above, for just one example). Even if he hadn’t used identical mechanisms and wordings to his predecessors, the necessity for subsequent indults is a pretty clear indication, otherwise there would have been no need for them.

    It is also true that scholars have expended much energy in print and on blogs debating how it was that Benedict XVI could possibly say that actually Paul VI never abrogated the EF when in fact it is easily demonstrable that this is precisely what Paul did (see the recent article in Worship, to give just one example.)

    So the question is: was Benedict lying? Surely not. Was he badly advised? That seems certain. Was what he said the truth? It seems clear that it was not, and that is where this issue keeps rumbling on and on. Benedict himself may well not have realized that what he said was not the truth, because he had received incorrect advice. No one is accusing him of lying, therefore, but perhaps there is the possibility of a lack of good judgement. Popes are often presented with material created by their servants, and do not always realize what the implications of that material may be. We have seen that frequently in this pontificate, and the previous one. If the spin doctors lower down the tree have done their work, plausibility wins out at the expense of the facts, and then the Pope or the Vatican get accused of being out of touch, ignorant, etc.

    The fact of the matter is that, whether associated with untruth or not, Benedict did issue SP, despite (as Bill pointed out) being begged by the French and English bishops not to do so — they could foresee the problems that would arise, and indeed they have. There are a number of solutions to the truth issue. One would be for an admission to be made that in fact Paul VI did indeed abrogate previous usages (unlikely, I know). That in turn would lead easily to a modification of the provisions of SP in such a way that the EF could continue to exist alongside the OF without, as is happening at the moment, jostling with it for premier position as the one true form of the rite.

    And now let us return to your regular programming…..

    1. @Paul Inwood – comment #69:
      I enjoyed your schtick about Pope Benedict being “badly advised”, but seriously? He was on the commission of Cardinals that discussed this very question in 1986. It’s not as if some lickspittle monsignor came up to him on July 6, 2007 and said, “Your Holiness, we have just discovered that your predecessor failed to abrogate the Missal of 1962.” “What? Is outrage! Write me a motu proprio at once – I’ll sign it in the morning!”

    2. @Paul Inwood – comment #69:
      Thank you Paul.
      My question was about the motive of you and others. Clearly others can argue the facts of the case into stalemate.
      Let us hope that the advantages arising from the current position outweigh the disadvantages. The workings of the Holy Spirit can be a challenge to understand.
      All the best
      Peter

  37. Hello Paul,

    I don’t disagree that Paul VI very likely thought he was abrogating the 1962 missal. It is telling, for example, that Paul VI issued an allocution on May 24, 1976 in which he observed that “adoption of the Ordo Missae [new Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful.”

    And yet, I also don’t think it’s juridical pedantry to make a sticking point out of the fact that, as you put it, he “hadn’t used identical mechanisms and wordings to his predecessors.” In canon law, words have effect, and they matter. The promulgation declaration for the NO contains no such formula as we see in Quo Primum, and we don’t find it anywhere else. Perhaps it was an oversight. Obviously, de facto, the old mass effectively was abrogated in almost all places, at least until 1984 (or, if you like, 2007). But de jure? The cardinals in 1985 thought not, 8-1.

    The real difficulty, to me, is whether the novus ordo, in its three editions, really is just a new form or update of the Roman Rite. Yet so much was changed that, I think, I’d make the argument that it’s really an entirely new rite; there are far more differences between them than there is between, say, the TLM and the old Ambrosian Rite, for example. That would make Benedict’s expression of both as merely forms of the same rite a . . . polite judicial fiction. If this is the case, it actually makes the case for a continued freedom to celebrate the old rite more plausible and fitting with the liturgical tradition. Or so I might argue.

    Benedict did issue SP, despite (as Bill pointed out) being begged by the French and English bishops not to do so — they could foresee the problems that would arise, and indeed they have.

    I’m mystified by what you’re referring to here. The only difficulties I am aware of involve the continuing opposition of many bishops (esp. in E&W and France) to *any* celebration of the TLM, and their efforts to squelch requests for same. They don’t like it; they want it to die off. But that’s been going on for a while.

    1. @Richard Malcolm – comment #70:
      Has anyone considered that the Second Vatican Council in effect abrogated the missal of 1962, by issuing commands that were inconsistent with that missal’s continued use? If so, the question is whether Pope Benedict defied the council by issuing SP, and if he did, whether he had the authority to do so.

      1. @Paul R. Schwankl – comment #84:
        I am sure people have considered it, but have not been persuaded that B16’s authority to revive the 1962 missal was any less than P6’s was to go beyond the literal guidance provided by SC. As an argument, it’s a double-edged sword.

        What B16 did in the motu proprio was a legal finesse: he was trying to create the image of papal restraint by not characterizing a revival as such but recognizing a failure to abrogate in technical terms. The problem with this is that it impliedly abrogated missal editions before 1962 (if it didn’t, then that would create an interesting contradiction in the document…) but left subsequent missal editions unabrogated. Some potential for recursive reasoning. Et cet.

      2. @Karl Liam Saur – comment #85:
        I’m not sure how sharp one edge of the sword is. It would seem to me that a pope has more authority to do more than a council requires than to go directly against what it requires.
        I’m also not sure whether Pope Benedict’s resort, in SP, to the technicalities of “juridical abrogation” would convince anyone not already invested in the result.

      3. @Paul R. Schwankl – comment #84:
        It wouldn’t make much sense to abrogate a Missal before its replacement is available for use, so I doubt the Council itself “in effect abrogated the missal of 1962.” The 1962 Missal continued to be used at least until September of 1964, when Inter oecumenici was issued. Inter oecumenici speaks of norms and practices allowed or mandated “even before revision of the liturgical books”, so the 1962 Missal was still being used with “on-the-fly” revisions.

        For example, with the 1962 Missal still in place, Sacrosanctum concilium 28 could be put into effect, as Inter oecumenici mandates: “Parts belonging to the choir or to the people and sung or recited by them are not said privately by the celebrant.” and “Nor are readings that are read or sung by the appropriate minister said privately by the celebrant.” (nn. 32-33)

        Which commands of the Council would you say were “inconsistent with [the 1962 MR]’s continued use”? Certainly there are decrees in Sacrosanctum concilium that require a change in practice, but is there anything intrinsically opposed to a Missal “in the tradition” of the 1962 Missal?

        Or are you using “abrogate” in a very strict sense, such that any change to the 1962 Missal results in its abrogation? (For example: the introduction of St. Joseph’s name to the Canon would have abrogated the Missal in use in 1960?)

      4. @Jeffrey Pinyan – comment #86:
        Could we speak of abrogation ordered by the Council to take effect in the future, maybe?
        Let me try a refinement so that we don’t have to worry about 1963-1970: “Ordo Missae recognoscatur” and “Ritus simpliciores fiant” (SC 50) are incompatible with the continued use of the 1962 missal after 1970, when a complete replacement was available. The changes the Council ordered could have been made less radically (more “‘in the tradition’ of the 1962 missal”), but to continue using the entire 1962 missal is to not make those changes at all, which to me seems indefensible.

      5. @Paul R. Schwankl – comment #87:
        Paul, we went over this in another thread. The Pope on his own and the Pope in union with the Council both have supreme disciplinary authority. This is the clear teaching of the Church. Just because the council says to do something doesn’t mean that the Pope can’t say to do something different. For a Pope to overturn the disciplinary norms of a Council is not “indefensible”, but absolutely permitted.

      6. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #88:
        If it’s absolutely permitted for a pope to overturn the disciplinary norms of a council, why did Benedict in SP not acknowledge he was doing so?

      7. @Paul R. Schwankl – comment #87:
        That description is more sensible, in my opinion.

        Sacrosanctum Concilium definitely lays out a programme for a revised Missal with considerable differences from the 1962 MR:

        * less silent duplication of prayers said by others (SC 28)
        * more participation by the congregation in acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs (SC 30)
        * better-defined rubrics for the congregation (SC 31)
        * expanded selection of readings from the Bible (SC 51)
        * restoration of the “prayer of the faithful” (SC 53)
        * provision made for the vernacular (SC 54)
        * provision for Communion under both species (SC 55)
        * provision for a new rite of concelebration to be used more often (SC 57-58)

      8. @Paul R. Schwankl – comment #84:
        Paul
        See my question to Paul Inwood in #57 above, deliberately open, and my hypothesis in #60 above.
        In response Paul Inwood, in #69 above, says that his concern is “about the truth” about whether there was an abrogation but does not say that it would do more than require “a modification of the provisions of SP.” It does not, if I understand correctly, imply that SP is invalid.
        With these long discussion threads it is easy to miss something. I hope that this one helps.

      9. @Peter Haydon – comment #93:
        Yes, this is a long and complex thread—and possibly tedious when it hashes out issues concerning SP, which is already five years old. Thanks for your sympathetic words.
        As a nonprofessional, I have found it hard to make sense out of the pro-SP position. Paul Inwood’s comment regarding truth and lying at #69 is helpful. It seems obvious to me that when a council says “This form of worship must be changed” it leaves no room for “But it can stay the same”—and that, consequently, a pope who wants to revive such a form of worship is in the uncomfortable position of setting aside a council’s decree. But the present pope evidently thinks his program is entirely consistent with the Council’s decrees. In 1997 he expressed distress that a community might “suddenly declare that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden.” (The 1962 missal, not the Eucharist itself, is our holiest and highest possession?) Then, in 1998, he insisted, “The authority of the Church has the power to define and limit the use of . . . rites in different historical situations, but she never just purely and simply forbids them!” (If that’s true, what was done with the rites that were less than 200 years old in 1570?) He continued, “Thus the Council ordered a reform of the liturgical books, but it did not prohibit the former books.” How can that be?
        Well, here’s a possibility: He just interprets SC 50, the crucial text for me, as reading “Ordo Missae recognoscantur.” If that’s granted, everything else falls into place, I suppose.

  38. Hello Jonathan,

    As to your examples – I appreciate the list – I would second what Sam says: If these must be considered, it must be noted that most can be found, or allowed, in the new missal as well. Perhaps they are not seen often, and perhaps some would wish they werenever seen, but that’s fodder for another discussion…

    What do they signify for Catholics today? That’s a fair question. If the implication (and I don’t know if it is your implication) is that many or all of these manifest obsolescent cultural premises that no longer obtain – or may even be offensive – for most Catholics today, that’s worth discussing, albeit probably in another thread devoted to it.

    I suspect a few of these don’t signify much of anything, because they’re hardly noticed. For example, “the prescribed number of swings of the censer at various incensations” certainly is not remotely as visible or striking as, say, a cappa magna, save to the most devoted liturgy hounds.

  39. in the end it’s not about whether you like or dislike the OF or the EF, it’s about truth.

    So said the combatants in the Molinist controversy. But the Pope pointed out that the discussion was of largely only theoretical interest, even if it was also about Truth.

    Even if he hadn’t used identical mechanisms and wordings to his predecessors, the necessity for subsequent indults is a pretty clear indication, otherwise there would have been no need for them.

    Well if Pope Benedict XVI could be mistaken, why couldn’t the folks who offered those indults have been mistaken?

    in fact it is easily demonstrable that this is precisely what Paul did (see the recent article in Worship, to give just one example.)

    Well no, people disagree about it. Intelligent and trusted people on both sides. If it was “easily demonstrable” they wouldn’t.

    The fact of the matter is that, whether associated with untruth or not, Benedict did issue SP, despite (as Bill pointed out) being begged by the French and English bishops not to do so — they could foresee the problems that would arise, and indeed they have.

    There is little evidence that there have been significant problems.

    There are a number of solutions to the truth issue.

    There’s basically no need for a solution. Even if the Pope admits that it was abrogated, he can just unabrogate it, even nunc pro tunc, and we can all get on with it.

    That in turn would lead easily to a modification of the provisions of SP in such a way that the EF could continue to exist alongside the OF without, as is happening at the moment, jostling with it for premier position as the one true form of the rite.

    You can’t have it both ways. You’ve maintained that the plain meaning of the legislation is the inferior position of the EF. If that is true, there can’t possibly be any threat to the OF from the EF “jostling” for position.

    1. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #73:
      The fact of the matter is that, whether associated with untruth or not, Benedict did issue SP, despite (as Bill pointed out) being begged by the French and English bishops not to do so — they could foresee the problems that would arise, and indeed they have.

      There is little evidence that there have been significant problems.

      Do you know this for a fact – have you spoken with dozens of bishops who continue to deal with this issue from the tiny remnant that demand the EF; want a parish dedicated to it; want bishops to put out diocesan policies that regulate and require every parish to include an EF every week-end (whether parish wants or needs this)? (your one liner has little documentation to prove it)

      That in turn would lead easily to a modification of the provisions of SP in such a way that the EF could continue to exist alongside the OF without, as is happening at the moment, jostling with it for premier position as the one true form of the rite.

      You can’t have it both ways. You’ve maintained that the plain meaning of the legislation is the inferior position of the EF. If that is true, there can’t possibly be any threat to the OF from the EF “jostling” for position.

      Again, if you work in some diocesan admin offices you would understand that some pastors are currently dealing with the OF vs. EF *jostling* creating parish splits, anger, etc.

      The issue is very significant in France.

  40. Sam: There is little evidence that there have been significant problems.

    Bill: Do you know this for a fact – have you spoken with dozens of bishops who continue to deal with this issue from the tiny remnant that demand the EF; want a parish dedicated to it; want bishops to put out diocesan policies that regulate and require every parish to include an EF every week-end (whether parish wants or needs this)? (your one liner has little documentation to prove it)

    The burden of proof is on those who claim something (problems) exist. Your examples aren’t concrete and in the abstract make little sense. Groups of traditionalists clamoring for diocesan policies regulating the EF? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Most diocese that have felt the need to issue diocesan policies have been hostile and traditionalists would rather not have them. EF supporters mostly want their dioceses to leave them alone. Simple requests aren’t “problems.” Doing ordinary work of the Church is the job of her administrators.

    Paul: That in turn would lead easily to a modification of the provisions of SP in such a way that the EF could continue to exist alongside the OF without, as is happening at the moment, jostling with it for premier position as the one true form of the rite.

    Sam: You can’t have it both ways. You’ve maintained that the plain meaning of the legislation is the inferior position of the EF. If that is true, there can’t possibly be any threat to the OF from the EF “jostling” for position.

    Bill: … some pastors are currently dealing with the OF vs. EF *jostling* creating parish splits, anger, etc.

    See above on evidence, but you’ve missed the point, it’s about the logical consistency of Paul’s arguments. He can’t argue (as above) that SP and UE plainly establish the superiority of the OF and that the lack of abrogation argument needs to be removed so as to show the superiority of the OF so as avoid this conflict.

    1. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #77:
      For your reading pleasure:

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-pope-latin-idUSTRE74C29120110513

      Money quotes:
      – The return of the mass met with resistance in many places and has been privately opposed by some bishops, who either have dragged their feet in implementing the decree or put it on the back burner, saying they had more pressing issues to deal with.

      A Vatican official said recently that only a third of the world’s bishops responded to a Vatican questionnaire and that prejudice against the old mass was “still widespread.”

      1. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #79:
        Let’s see – you started this by giving an opinion:
        “There is little evidence that there have been significant problems.”
        Thus, I responded with an opinion:
        “Do you know this for a fact ……….”
        To which you opined:
        “The burden of proof is on those who claim something (problems) exist. Your examples aren’t concrete and in the abstract make little sense.”
        So, provided an article that suggests episcopal resistance which you opine is completely different from citing problems.

        This is rich……you start with your own opinion (no examples so isn’t *concrete* and appears to be *abstract* – so must make little sense) but then require that anyone questioning that opinion has the *burden of proof*. And then, when some proof is provided, you opine that it is a complete different issue.

        So, to your initial opinion – “there is little evidence that there have been significant problems” – let’s apply your burden of proof rule – where is the proof?

        I’ve based my opinion on numerous colleagues who teach liturgy; are diocesan liturgy directors; a few pastors; etc. who have relayed their own specific examples and experiences. Semantically, you can say that there is a difference between resisting implementation and problems but, would counter, that it is a reasonable deduction to attribute resistance to identified problems (whether specifically outlined in the article or not). Would argue that it is more reasonable than your dismissal based upon your *difference*.

        Let’s see – in the earlier posts you ratched things up on Paul Inwood’s facts about canon law and missal abrogation; a few posts prior to that, Fr. Ruff had asked that you get a grip and tone it down.

        You do appear to be on a roll.

  41. Mr. Dalby – a partial list:
    – large downtown parish with limited resources – financial and ordained staff…..yet, a group demands an EF mass at every week-end liturgy. When the pastor asks how many want this, there is no definite number given; rather, it is conveyed that Rome demands this; they have rights; folks need to see the EF; the parish is suffering because they do not have an EF; they have gone to the diocese but the diocese passes the buck back to individual pastors.
    This pastor faces supporting a school with majority of minority students and urban poverty – both financial and staff questions?
    He faces a parish community that runs in the RED every month and yet serves a few thousand homeless every month; it is only he and a foreign priest assistant (neither of whom have the skills to do the EF).
    Simply, the parish has priorities and sponsoring an EF is not high on the list and yet it demands attention (mostly negative).

    Another pastor of a dowtown parish with a long and successful tradition of supporting the homeless; very active around catholic social actions; primarily an older community that does meals every day plus evening meals on week-ends. The vast majority of parishioners are involved in this parish – and yet, from time to time, a small group interferes or obstructs these parish programs by demanding an EF mass as more important than any of the parish, agreed upon traditions and programs. This pastor is the only assigned priest.
    Both have spoken about loud parish council meetings with speakers who are obstinate, chips on their shoulders, angry, and entitled to an EF trying to force the parish to change directions; spend money on EF liturgies, spend money and time on staff for the EF, etc. This results in hurt feelings, more anger, confusion, and decreased community morale.

  42. Thank you for your answer, Bill, it sounds as though both those parishes are stretched pretty thin. But surely the answer here is to tell these groups that they can have what they want (scheduled to suit the parish), provided that they fund the cost of the exercise and provide the man-power (including finding and paying for a priest to say Mass for them)?

    Unless there is some sort of ideological objection to allowing the Old Mass to be offered, that approach would effectively call the bluff of those asking for it, possibly raise some extra finance for the parish and serve the needs of those who are not getting what they feel that they need from the New Mass.

  43. Paul – you might enjoy this from Congar the year before Vatican II:

    “Diversity and Divisions.” Toward the end, he spoke of what he called “a law of communion,” whose implications he then spelled out:
    Although external authority has a place within it, the church is a society not by coercion but by communion: communion of the members in the same objects of faith and love, communion of the members with one another.
    The great requirement of this communion is openness, a readiness to welcome, to give, and to exchange. Individuals, groups, peoples, we distinguish ourselves by ways of thinking that are different, perhaps even in certain respects opposed. But there is one way which must be common to us, because it derives from Christianity itself. The spiritual principle which makes us Christians necessarily entails the consciousness that we are not alone, that others also are subjects. It necessarily entails an invitation not to lock myself in a system or a situation, but to accept that systems of ideas and situations be called into question.”
    We ought to leave room in the margins, even of our manifestos, for corrections, additions, new emphases, someone else’s insights. Above all, we ought to leave room, at least in the margins, for our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *