Sunday, July 15, 2007
Implementation of the Motu Propio
[See below for update #2]
I certainly expected some bumps along the ride, but it's really starting early. As someone who has been looking forward to the return of the 1962 Missal, I was really deflated by what I heard this morning.
I'm beginning to sense the motu propio will be ignored by some pastors in my diocese. During this morning's homily at St. James in Seaford, the pastor stated point blank that the motu proprio does not mean that the parishoners in his parish will have any right to request or expect a traditional mass as part of the regular schedule. This is because, he says, the diocese has instructed its pastors (via email, apparently) that parishoners will only have the right to request regular traditional masses in communities where it has been continuously "adhered to all these many years" since the Novus Ordo was implemented. How this makes sense eludes me.
The translation of the Motu Propio that I read was that pastors should "willingly accede" to the requests of their parishoners for a traditional mass "in parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably." The way I understand that, the document does not only offer the right to request traditional masses to those parishes where the liturgy has existed stably (how could it when it was basically forbidden?), but rather to parishes in which parishoners who are attached to the old liturgy have existed stably. The word "attachment" is not defined, but I would assume that the attachment, be it of asthetic, nostaglic, or theological reasons, would be internal to the parishoner, and not one of external/communal practice, since such practice has been basically impossible.
The pastor did instruct us that there was a church about 10 miles away, and another about 40 miles away, that currently (and licitly) offer mass according to the 1962 Missal.
Of course, it's early yet, so hopefully all this will be worked out by the time the motu propio is actually implemented in September. And perhaps I'm the one at fault here for not willingly submitting to the judgment of the pastor, even though it seems (to my imperfect reason and faith) to be at odds with the Holy Father's statements.
UPDATE #1:
The US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has released a FAQ regarding the Motu Propio. Question 5 deals with the issue above. Their interpretation is concise:
Not extraordinarily helpful, as they also punt on defining "attached."
UPDATE #2:
The priest at my parish in Hicksville confirmed for me today that the Bishop has made a determination that, "for now," the only traditional masses that will be offered will be the two already offered. He has instructed the pastors that any parishoners who request the Mass of Blessed John XXIII should be instructed that the mass is already available in Uniondale or Cutchogue.
Also, in the comments, William of Nassau made an important observation that we should not lose sight of the real blessing that already exists in those two churches offering the traditional mass. And that a hopeful, even-tempered dialogue with pastors will be an important part of implementing the M.P.
I certainly expected some bumps along the ride, but it's really starting early. As someone who has been looking forward to the return of the 1962 Missal, I was really deflated by what I heard this morning.
I'm beginning to sense the motu propio will be ignored by some pastors in my diocese. During this morning's homily at St. James in Seaford, the pastor stated point blank that the motu proprio does not mean that the parishoners in his parish will have any right to request or expect a traditional mass as part of the regular schedule. This is because, he says, the diocese has instructed its pastors (via email, apparently) that parishoners will only have the right to request regular traditional masses in communities where it has been continuously "adhered to all these many years" since the Novus Ordo was implemented. How this makes sense eludes me.
The translation of the Motu Propio that I read was that pastors should "willingly accede" to the requests of their parishoners for a traditional mass "in parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably." The way I understand that, the document does not only offer the right to request traditional masses to those parishes where the liturgy has existed stably (how could it when it was basically forbidden?), but rather to parishes in which parishoners who are attached to the old liturgy have existed stably. The word "attachment" is not defined, but I would assume that the attachment, be it of asthetic, nostaglic, or theological reasons, would be internal to the parishoner, and not one of external/communal practice, since such practice has been basically impossible.
The pastor did instruct us that there was a church about 10 miles away, and another about 40 miles away, that currently (and licitly) offer mass according to the 1962 Missal.
Of course, it's early yet, so hopefully all this will be worked out by the time the motu propio is actually implemented in September. And perhaps I'm the one at fault here for not willingly submitting to the judgment of the pastor, even though it seems (to my imperfect reason and faith) to be at odds with the Holy Father's statements.
UPDATE #1:
The US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has released a FAQ regarding the Motu Propio. Question 5 deals with the issue above. Their interpretation is concise:
5. When may the extraordinary form be used in parishes?
In parishes where a group of the faithful are attached to the extraordinary form of the Mass, they may approach the pastor, who is to support their petition willingly. No permissions are required.
Not extraordinarily helpful, as they also punt on defining "attached."
UPDATE #2:
The priest at my parish in Hicksville confirmed for me today that the Bishop has made a determination that, "for now," the only traditional masses that will be offered will be the two already offered. He has instructed the pastors that any parishoners who request the Mass of Blessed John XXIII should be instructed that the mass is already available in Uniondale or Cutchogue.
Also, in the comments, William of Nassau made an important observation that we should not lose sight of the real blessing that already exists in those two churches offering the traditional mass. And that a hopeful, even-tempered dialogue with pastors will be an important part of implementing the M.P.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(477)
-
▼
July
(37)
- The Prince of Darkness
- Could Edwards be surging?
- Get well soon
- Hey Steve:
- Rudy vs. Mitt
- Wendy Long joins Team Romney
- Stacked Mortadella and Red Peppers on Italian Bread
- A Must Read
- Newt
- Edwards crushing
- Sweet smell of Incense
- Gay sweaters hasten McCain's demise
- Mitt
- Soren Dayton posits an explanation
- Pachebel's Artillery
- Current GOP Candidate Preferences: July '07 Update
- Best wishes to our friends across the pond
- Newt goes off
- Dems vaccuuming up the funds
- Byron York on Rush Limbaugh
- Now, my friend, you have gone TOO far!
- Iran, part deux
- Huckabee nails it
- Bishop Olmstead with some sensible guidance
- When worms fall from the sky
- As the T-shirt says,
- Moore good news
- Implementation of the Motu Propio
- Rudy
- 38% of Republicans now oppose the President
- Ruh Roh
- SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
- Rumsfeld
- One day to Motu Propio
- Why I love MLB
- Independence Day
- Q2 fundraising
-
▼
July
(37)
8 comments:
Looking only at the wording of Art. 5.1, it does seem that the most likely interpretation is the second one Fredo offers. That is, in those parishes where a reasonable number of parishioners who have some interest in the traditional mass make the request of their church, it should be respected and implemented. This is of course also the most common sense interpretation of the article. I think it is written to make clear that: (a) at least some reasonable number of parishioners must make the request, such that every priest in every parish does not have to provide a traditional mass if only one or two congregants requests it, and (b) I think the word "attachment" is purposely left vague to indicate that the bar for making the request does not have to be high.
Some interesting questions w.r.t. Fredo's situation specifically, are: (1) why was this directive issued by the diocese, and (2) why did the priest specifically bring it up? Is it because he has indeed received many such requests yet does not want to implement the traditional mass? Or is it because he has received few to no such requests (but if this was the case, why broach the topic at all?)
The priest quite simply is wrong. There is nothing in the letter which says that only in places where people attended the indult regularly will the Traditional Latin Mass be made available. Parishioners, according to the Motu Proprio, have a right to appeal this priest's decision to the Bishop and then, if necessary to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. No priest has the authority to overrule the Pope.
Thanks for your comment, Aristotle. Unfortunately, based on the priest's comment that he had received an email from the diocese, I don't know if the Bishop will be tacitly approving such positions.
Today's front page at the diocesan web page leads me to worry...
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
This instruction, which takes effect on September 14, 2007 grants permission to priests to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal Promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962.
In the Diocese of Rockville Centre, the Mass using the Roman Missal of 1962 is offered each Sunday at 11:00 a.m. in the Chapel at St. Pius X in Uniondale and on the First Sunday of each month (11:00 a.m.) at the Church of the Sacred Heart in Cutchogue.
For more information on Summorum Pontificum click on the following links:
- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Website: http://www.usccb.org/
- Vatican Website: http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm
The relevance of the fact that there are currently two parishes (in our diocese of over 1.4 Million Catholics) that were previously authorized to offer the 1962 Mass is tangential to the topic of the Motu Propio, and sounds like a stab at saying, "we've already met the Pope's request." Here's to hoping I'm wrong.
In fact, if the priest was kind enough..etc..he WAS being kind to point out where the Latin Mass is offered! Hardly anyone ever hears about the Latin Mass being offered anywhere! And most priests wouldn't give you the time of day about it.
This Diocese has it weekly and if it is 10 miles away, so be it. If you live on Long Island you drive 10 miles for practically everything.
Look, buds: we got a chance here!
Let's not blow it by the all-too-usual moaning and priest-bashing. The Pope's document takes effect on September 14th: no parish priest can implement on his own.
If this works at all; it will depend on the good-will and the ability of parish priests just like that one to make it work.
William. Point taken, for those who weren't aware of it, the existence of the 1962 mass in Uniondale and Cutchogue was a helpful bit of information. My frustration crossed the line into sarcasm, which was unnecessary.
My point, sans attitude, was that the comment on the Pius X Chapel could have been made on any Sunday (it's been going on there long before the Motu Propio). The fact that it was brought up in the context of the M.P., and the fact that the Pastor's comments were apparently preceded by an email from the diocese, made me think that the existence of the Uniondale/Cutchogue masses was going to be the totality of the diocese's response to the M.P.
While I was frustrated with the vibe I was getting from that homily, I hope it's not interpreted as Priest bashing. These men heroically dedicate their lives to Christ, and receive far less appreciation than they deserve from the world in return.
In the long run, I think if the Motu Propio is implemented as (IMHO) it is intended--where the Mass of Blessed John XXIII should be made available by the Pastor of every parish is there is a group committed to attending it--it will only increase appreciation for the priesthood and the sacramental responsibilities of the priest.
Of course, there are some very real logistical problems that parishes will face in implementing the M.P., which is why I'm sure many pastors will want to go slow and make sure there is a group truly "attached" to the Mass before implementing it in their parishes. So it's clearly not going to happen from day one in September.
Good to read your reply, Fredo. Too often things like this turn into "flame wars".
Btw: that priest ( unless I guess wrong; no names need be mentioned) is in fact one of the very few priests to actually have offered the Traditional Mass as part of that Diocesan program.
Keep on eye there and let's see what actually 'eventuates' down there in Seaford.
I have a feeling Fredo may be correct in his hunch about the diocesan attitude towards the MP.
I have been reading a lot of statements from bishops on the MP, and the statement from Rockville Centre seems to a carefully worded ambiguity.
The fact remains, however, that the first paragraph of the diocesan statement clearly states that the Pope has granted all priests the right to celebrate the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. If the Pope has given them the right, then they have that right---period.
All the doubletalk, obfuscations, limitations, qualifications, disclaimers, and 'instructions' can do nothing to take away the right that the first paragraph of the diocesan statement recognizes.
So true, Julie.
However, that permission is explicitly granted for "Masses without a congregation"; i.e., "private Masses" not the sort of thing we've been discussing.
To be honest, I do not think it at all likely ( or even possible) that you will find a Latin Mass according to the Missal of 1962 in every parish. The vast majority of priests are not capable of doing so.
What MIGHT be possible is more places where it offered other than the 2 in place now.