I think that this is WONDERFUL!!! I pray that many priests and faithful will avail themselves. Frankly, it may well help some "on the fence" high church Anglo-Catholics to swim! After all, the "Anglican Missal" is essentially the Tridentine Mass translated into traditional-language English.
| QUOTE (David Zampino @ Jul 7 2007, 09:50 AM) |
| I think that this is WONDERFUL!!! I pray that many priests and faithful will avail themselves. Frankly, it may well help some "on the fence" high church Anglo-Catholics to swim! After all, the "Anglican Missal" is essentially the Tridentine Mass translated into traditional-language English. |
I have read for years the objections of some very hich-church minded individuals from Anglicanism - and Lutheranism - that they would convert but they can't leave behind their liturgies.
I am hoping the same as you - that with this excuse gone, courage enters their heart and they make themselves at home with Rome.
Simple
Here is an unofficial English text:
MOTU PROPRIO "SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM"
VATICAN CITY, JUL 7, 2007 (VIS) - Given below is a non-official English- language translation of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" of Pope Benedict XVI, "Summorum Pontificum," concerning the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The original text is written in Latin.
"Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, 'to the praise and glory of His name,' and 'to the benefit of all His Holy Church.'
"Since time immemorial it has been necessary - as it is also for the future - to maintain the principle according to which 'each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.' (1)
"Among the pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their Rule that 'nothing should be placed before the work of God.' In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms, in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety.
"Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and 'renewed in accordance with the norms of the Fathers,' and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.
"One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times.
"'It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform.' (2) Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X (3), Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.
"In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that 'this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.' (4)
"But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult 'Quattuor abhinc anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given as Motu Proprio, 'Ecclesia Dei,' exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.
"Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:
"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
"It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents 'Quattuor abhinc annis' and 'Ecclesia Dei,' are substituted as follows:
"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.
"Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.
"Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.
"Art. 5. õ 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church. õ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held. õ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages. õ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded. õ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.
Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.
"Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 õ 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".
"Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to obtain counsel and assistance.
"Art. 9. õ 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it. õ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it. õ 2 Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.
"Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.
"Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", erected by John Paul II in 1988 (5), continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.
"Art. 12. This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.
"We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.
" From Rome, at St. Peter's, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate." (1) General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, no. 397. (2) John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," 4 December 1988, 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.
(3) Ibid. (4) St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Motu propio data, "Abhinc duos annos," 23 October 1913: AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," no. 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899. (5) Cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio data "Ecclesia Dei," 2 July 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.
BXVI-MP/.../SUMMORUM PONTIFICUMVIS 070707 (1900)
I wrote the following in response to A Simple Sinner on the
On Our Way Home Forum:
| QUOTE |
Hi All. Thanks David, Roy and Simple for your postings on this subject. I have been asking around what the Catholics of my generation think of this. I am just barely old enough to remember the Latin Liturgies of 1962 and before (reaching the age of 50 this year).
I learned my first prayers in Latin. I also had to learn the Catechism in Latin--by rote memory since I didn't really understand what I was saying in my responses (Baltimore style). Our parish priest continued Latin until I reached the 6th grade, when he finally retired. A younger priest, and co-pastor of the same parish offered the vernacular. The church could not contain all of the people who wanted to hear the Mass in their own language. They eventually had 5 Masses in English in our parish and one in Latin until Fr. Kelly's retirement in 1968. Then, only in English. A number of parishioners had "fallen away from weekly mass, they said, in part due to the Latin.
The "boomers" I have spoken with smile coyly when I ask them about the return of Latin. They (and I) wonder why it is important to those even younger than us who had no Latin liturgy growing up. It might attract me to a mass or two for nostalgia's sake, (like going to the Beatles Party this past weekend) but that is all. I find the current rites to be comfortable. I do not hold to the belief that something said in Latin is any holier, proper, valid or more reverent than something said in vernacular. I also attend an occasional Spanish Mass and also Korean, Creole, French and Vietnamese etc. As a primarily English speaker, I am happy with the changes of Vatican 2 as regards the liturgies.
Rather than putting a lot of energy into Latin, I would like to see refinements to the current vernacular. One of the primary criticisms of Catholics by non-Catholics during my early years (through the 1980's), was: We didn't know what we believed. I blame this in part on Latin and rote memorization of the same. The formation of faith and conscience is accomplished partly by reinforcement in all areas of my life including the sacramental. If a segment of that life is unintelligible, it will eventually lead to problems in faith and conscience. It is via the liturgies in English, that I first began to understand what I believed. So much Catechism is contained in the Liturgies!
If those who wish to embrace the Latin-use liturgies will thoroughly indoctrinate their children in English, than I have no problem with the current trend...as I smile.
Just my 2 cents. |
And, I add: The Latin may seem more mystical to some, though I found it mystifying as a child. One more cent. :rolleyes:
| QUOTE (stlouismb @ Jul 9 2007, 09:29 AM) |
I wrote the following in response to A Simple Sinner on the On Our Way Home Forum:
| QUOTE | Rather than putting a lot of energy into Latin, I would like to see refinements to the current vernacular. One of the primary criticisms of Catholics by non-Catholics during my early years (through the 1980's), was: We didn't know what we believed. I blame this in part on Latin and rote memorization of the same. The formation of faith and conscience is accomplished partly by reinforcement in all areas of my life including the sacramental. If a segment of that life is unintelligible, it will eventually lead to problems in faith and conscience. It is via the liturgies in English, that I first began to understand what I believed. So much Catechism is contained in the Liturgies!
|
And, I add: The Latin may seem more mystical to some, though I found it mystifying as a child. One more cent. :rolleyes:
|
As a convert, I could not disagree more strongly -- NOT as far as the Latin Mass is concerned -- but rather the suggestion that somehow the Latin was responsible for the pathetic catechesis of Catholics from about 1968 through about 1983 (give or take). The decay in catechesis can be laid at the feet of the kooky progressives of the late 1960's and 1970's who discarded dogma and doctrine for the sake of "relevancy"; who rejected "Thus Saith The Lord" for Situational Ethics; who degraded and destroyed so many vocations (both male and female) etc. (And yes, the Episcopal church suffered much of the same during the same time frame).
Recovery did not begin until well into the papacy of Servant of God John Paul II the Great.
Yes, there are some traditionalists who have serious -- SERIOUS -- issues, and I don't debate that. Abp. Levebre and the rebels on the far right are nearly as damaging as the "Cafeteria Catholics" on the far left. But to blame the difficulties the Church has suffered on those who prefer the Old Mass just is not demographically accurate.
Hello, everyone. How are you doing? :unsure:
David,
You echoed my sentiments and thoughts. I will add. "If parishes wish to include Latin, I applaud them. If folks want to receive the Eucharist on the tongue only, that is great as well. If altars are against the eastern wall, again, that is wonderful. In my parish it is this way. I love it both ways. The beauty of the Catholic Church is the diversity of expression."
Hope you all are doing well. I miss the dialogue. :)
It is difficult to hold this discussion on two sites simultaneously, so I will only add this one reply for now:
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (David Zampino @ Jul 9 2007, 08:29 PM) | | QUOTE (stlouismb @ Jul 9 2007, 08:23 AM) | Rather than putting a lot of energy into Latin, I would like to see refinements to the current vernacular. One of the primary criticisms of Catholics by non-Catholics during my early years (through the 1980's), was: We didn't know what we believed. I blame this in part on Latin and rote memorization of the same. The formation of faith and conscience is accomplished partly by reinforcement in all areas of my life including the sacramental. If a segment of that life is unintelligible, it will eventually lead to problems in faith and conscience. It is via the liturgies in English, that I first began to understand what I believed. So much Catechism is contained in the Liturgies!
|
As a convert, I could not disagree more strongly -- NOT as far as the Latin Mass is concerned -- but rather the suggestion that somehow the Latin was responsible for the pathetic catechesis of Catholics from about 1968 through about 1983 (give or take). The decay in catechesis can be laid at the feet of the kooky progressives of the late 1960's and 1970's who discarded dogma and doctrine for the sake of "relevancy"; who rejected "Thus Saith The Lord" for Situational Ethics; who degraded and destroyed so many vocations (both male and female) etc. (And yes, the Episcopal church suffered much of the same during the same time frame).
Recovery did not begin until well into the papacy of Servant of God John Paul II the Great.
Yes, there are some traditionalists who have serious -- SERIOUS -- issues, and I don't debate that. Abp. Levebre and the rebels on the far right are nearly as damaging as the "Cafeteria Catholics" on the far left. But to blame the difficulties the Church has suffered on those who prefer the Old Mass just is not demographically accurate.
|
Sorry David and others. I did not mean to imply that Latin use was solely responsible for poor catechesis. I originally prepared this post in Latin and also in Olde English, but I was afraid some of you scholars would have found out I no longer have full command of the language(s). I am afraid I have grown "rusty". (no slight intended to the venerable Father ;) ).
However, I stand by my experience. The confusion that occurred during the transition from Latin to the vernacular made many of us vulnerable. Our primary defense of the faith was contained in Latin phrases which few of us could adequately explain. Difficult to use in debate with "born-again-ers" and would be (predatory) catechists; kooky progressive or not.
A funny thing happened while I was residing at a "community" out East a few years ago. The presider at liturgy preferred the flowery and poetic Olde English version of the BCP and the Scriptures. On one occasion, several of the youth of the community inquired of me as to the meaning of certain phrases and words used in the Liturgy of preference to which I gave them correct definition. I then thought it a good idea to quiz the presider and several of the community members (some were parents of the same youth) as to their understanding of the phrases and words brought to my attention by the youth. None of them were able to adequately explain the meaning either in context or out. But I digress....
| QUOTE | | My point is worship in whatever language you wish, but indoctrinate your children in language they understand and that can give them the best comprehension of the mysteries of our faith. |
That era of uncertainty did lead many to ask about relevancy. If the whole church could be turned on its head at a council (for that is how it seemed to many at the time), then what did matter? Fortunately we rediscovered the import of Catholic Social Teaching. Unfortunately, some took it too far toward Marxism. Fortunately we rediscovered the high calling of the vocation of Marriage. Unfortunately some used the occasion to degrade celibate religious. Fortunately we rediscovered the important role(s) of the laity. Unfortunately many took that to mean the church is a democracy. So on and so on.
You are correct that over the course of Church history, not just our modern era, the pendulum has swung widely and wildly. The Pontificate of John Paul 2 gave some much needed correction to the post Vatican 2 imbalances. As did a certain St. Francis of Assisi in his time. And, St. Benedict in his time. Along with many others throughout time.
I won't begin to tackle the issue of "traditionalists", nor the "far left" at this time of day nor perhaps on this thread. Only to say that over the course of my short life, every Catholic (and non-Catholic)I have met (myself included), convert or cradle or revert, tend to sidle up to the side of the smorgasbord that suits their taste--- Some of us prefer only the organic salad, others the meat and potatoes and still others seem to only eat dessert-- :unsure: .
|
One final tease:
Which of us can define the terms Motu proprio or Summorum Pontificum in English and distinguish them from other decrees and documents as to form and significance without looking them up in the Catholic Encyclopedia? :ph43r:
| QUOTE (kenfollis@juno.com @ Jul 9 2007, 09:49 PM) |
| For those in the area, the Fullness of Truth is having a conference here in San Antonio July 28-29 www.fullnessoftruth.org Michael Cumbie is speaking. |
I just went to the web site, not being familiar with the Fullness of Truth. It looks like it will be a great conference based on the comments of others from past conferences.
Are you attending, Ken?
Mike,
I have been serving as the parish promoter and will be attending the conference here. Please invite anyone you know who lives near San Antonio to take a look at the website. It is my heart's desire that all experience God's grace in the Sacraments. God is so good!
| QUOTE (stlouismb @ Jul 9 2007, 09:29 AM) |
I wrote the following in response to A Simple Sinner on the On Our Way Home Forum:
| QUOTE | Hi All. Thanks David, Roy and Simple for your postings on this subject. I have been asking around what the Catholics of my generation think of this. I am just barely old enough to remember the Latin Liturgies of 1962 and before (reaching the age of 50 this year).
I learned my first prayers in Latin. I also had to learn the Catechism in Latin--by rote memory since I didn't really understand what I was saying in my responses (Baltimore style). Our parish priest continued Latin until I reached the 6th grade, when he finally retired. A younger priest, and co-pastor of the same parish offered the vernacular. The church could not contain all of the people who wanted to hear the Mass in their own language. They eventually had 5 Masses in English in our parish and one in Latin until Fr. Kelly's retirement in 1968. Then, only in English. A number of parishioners had "fallen away from weekly mass, they said, in part due to the Latin.
The "boomers" I have spoken with smile coyly when I ask them about the return of Latin. They (and I) wonder why it is important to those even younger than us who had no Latin liturgy growing up. It might attract me to a mass or two for nostalgia's sake, (like going to the Beatles Party this past weekend) but that is all. I find the current rites to be comfortable. I do not hold to the belief that something said in Latin is any holier, proper, valid or more reverent than something said in vernacular. I also attend an occasional Spanish Mass and also Korean, Creole, French and Vietnamese etc. As a primarily English speaker, I am happy with the changes of Vatican 2 as regards the liturgies.
Rather than putting a lot of energy into Latin, I would like to see refinements to the current vernacular. One of the primary criticisms of Catholics by non-Catholics during my early years (through the 1980's), was: We didn't know what we believed. I blame this in part on Latin and rote memorization of the same. The formation of faith and conscience is accomplished partly by reinforcement in all areas of my life including the sacramental. If a segment of that life is unintelligible, it will eventually lead to problems in faith and conscience. It is via the liturgies in English, that I first began to understand what I believed. So much Catechism is contained in the Liturgies!
If those who wish to embrace the Latin-use liturgies will thoroughly indoctrinate their children in English, than I have no problem with the current trend...as I smile.
Just my 2 cents. |
And, I add: The Latin may seem more mystical to some, though I found it mystifying as a child. One more cent. :rolleyes:
|
You know Mike that is totally your perogative, and I respect your aspirations in that matter. Not being a Latin - just a big liturgy fan - I can't say I really have a dog in this fight per se.
Having said that, I also respect and admire guys younger than myself (I am 30) whom I have met that are seminarians at the FSSP - Fraternity of St. Peter - seminary in outside of Lincoln.
They have a strong appreciation for a Mass that many of them did not grow up with. In fact some of them DID grow up with it in communities where it has been offered for the past 40 some years.
TO think of this as a nostalgia thing - which you did not imply, just saying - is a mistake. There are a lot of living breathing communities out there already immersed in the spirituality of the TLM.
A "complaint" that I can't actually truly make about traditional parishes is this - sometimes there is an awful lot of crying in the pews. A happy noise to be sure! A lot of these folks have larger families, and are taking great care to make catechesis a big priority.