Extraordinary Rite News

[keitha]

Wow! Didn't see this coming:

https://press.vatican.va/content/salast ... I_Gz4#ingL

[keitha]

And here's the Motu Proprio itself:

https://www.vatican.va/content/francesc ... todes.html

[Southern Comfort]

Long overdue!

And the outpouring of vitriol and hate only serves to demonstrate how necessary this measure was.

Summorum Pontificum was intended to keep existing small groups on board, as a pastoral gesture. No more than that.

It didn't give them permission to proselytise.
It didn't give them permission to expand the number or size of their existing groups.
And it certainly didn't give them permission to keep telling the rest of us that we are not proper Catholics and that our liturgy is a fake betrayal of the tradition. Nor that the Church has gone to pot as a result of Vatican II.

Because they misunderstood all this, and saw SP as a legitimization of their splinter-group position rather than the pastoral gift that it was, they weaponised the Mass. That's the same as Marcel Lefebvre did. When a form of the Eucharist becomes a political bludgeon or a banner-waving exercise, it is necessary to rein back on it for the good of the whole community.

I'm sure all this will rumble on for ages, but in the meantime, I think those places where they may have one Tridentine celebration among many others will probably continue with the blessing of the local bishop, as a pastoral service to a small group of people. Indeed, I am aware of dioceses where priests have already been given the necessary permissions in order for them not to be canonically suspended this Sunday! On the other hand, those places where a priest has "hi-jacked" the liturgy for his own gratification and in the process alienated large swathes of parishioners will, I think, be made to change.

There is still provision for the bishop to designate specific locations where small groups can be serviced, but those locations are not to be parish churches. And the bishop can determine on what days of the week (maybe not Sunday) such celebrations take place. It's also interesting to note that no new "personal parishes" may be erected. One of our cathedrals recently announced that the Tridentine Sunday Mass in the cathedral would be moved elsewhere because it was interfering with the other Masses scheduled to take place on Sundays.

As I type this, I'm aware of one seminarian being ordained today, known for wearing yards of lace, who had announced that his Mass of Thanksgiving would be in the EF (a term that no longer exists) with all the trimmings. Under yesterday's legislation, he cannot now do this without applying to his local Ordinary for permission — and the local Ordinary will have to consult with Rome before granting permission. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

In the meantime, I think we should all be behaving with charity and even humility, certainly not crowing or gloating, and praying for a peaceful transition to the new state of affairs.

[alan29]

There are parishes that have been given over to groups that will only celebrate according to 1962. How will they stand? And there is no mention of other sacraments ........?

[Southern Comfort]

There are parishes that have been given over to groups that will only celebrate according to 1962. How will they stand? And there is no mention of other sacraments ........?

This article

Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.

may be the catch-all provision, even though it doesn't specifically mention other sacraments, rituals, and the former breviary.

I don't know what will happen with parishes that have been given over to fringe groups, Since the Motu Proprio provides for special locations to be designated by the local bishop, it may be that those fringe churches are no longer considered as "parochial churches" and so can continue as now. But everything is up to the bishop to decide; priests can no longer do whatever they like. And on that last point, I do know of more than one diocese now where the bishop has already instructed certain members of the clergy to desist from Tridentine parish Masses, and some have acquiesced.

[alan29]

Thank you.
Your plea for charity. I tried that .......... it didnt go well

[Fr Allen Morris]

I the the issue re other sacraments is covered in the letter by the statement that 'the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.'

Southern Comfort is right about the need for charity, even continued charity!

At the same time it is a time to look again at whether those others of us, who are not following EF, do faithfully follow the liturgical norms that are in force. Many things have crept in which are 'norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio' but not part of the current norms established in the liturgical books.

I wonder if SSG members or followers of this forum would like to highlight any? And think a about a process of renewal - which might give comfort to those others being pressed to change their ways.

[Southern Comfort]

At the same time it is a time to look again at whether those others of us, who are not following EF, do faithfully follow the liturgical norms that are in force. Many things have crept in which are 'norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio' but not part of the current norms established in the liturgical books.

I wonder if SSG members or followers of this forum would like to highlight any? And think a about a process of renewal - which might give comfort to those others being pressed to change their ways.

At the risk of stirring up a hornets' nest, the first thing that springs to mind is the insertion of the Hail Mary at the end of the intercessions before the final collect. It is not in the liturgical books.

It was first introduced by Archbishop George Patrick Dwyer in the early 1970s, when he was chair of the National Liturgical Commission. His dubious rationale was that if the Hail Mary was not included somewhere in the Mass, Catholics would forget how to say it, It did not seem to strike him that the Our Father had never been recited in the vernacular during Mass prior to 1969, and that Catholics had nevertheless managed to remember how it went.

On two separate occasions, the Holy See wrote to the Bishops' Conference, formally requesting that they discontinue the practice, but both times this was simply ignored. Rome's rationale was that the intercessions were addressed to the Father, and that introducing a prayer to someone else in the middle of them was a diversion. (In the interests of accuracy, at least one diocesan bishop wrote to his clergy in the wake of the second letter, informing them of Rome's position.)

In defence of Dwyer's interpolation, it has been pointed out that in the mediaeval period Our Lady was included in the intercessions. While this is true, the way in which she was included was rather different from a direct prayer addressed to her. The faithful were asked to associate her, together with the saints, to the intentions for prayer. For example, "Let us ask Mary and all the saints to join their prayers to ours as we remember those in our community who are sick." [Silence] "V/ Lord, in your mercy, R/ hear our prayer."

From England and Wales, the practice of inserting the Hail Mary spread to the rest of the British Isles, especially Ireland, and from Ireland to Canada and the US. While not common in either of the two latter countries, there are some parishes where the practice has taken root.

[Southern Comfort]

I'd also want to say that Allen Morris has raised a deeper question, which is about how the rite evolves over time, and which developments may be considered authentic and which may not.

A good example of this is the ritual of lighting a Unity Candle at weddings. For those who have not seen this, two smaller candles on the altar, symbolising the two families, are used to "pass the flame" to a larger candle between them, symbolising the union of those two families.

Liturgical purists have consistently tried, with varying degrees of success, to ban this ritual, but it can nevertheless still be found at many celebrations. The reason for the attempted ban is that this ritual originated as a "Hallmark" moment. It was quite simply designed to boost sales of candles, and so was blatant commercial exploitation. It does not exist in the liturgical books.

However, this sordid prosaic origin has long since been forgotten, and the ritual quickly became customary as more and more couples saw it taking place at weddings they attended, leading them to want to do the same themselves. Special candlestands were even produced to house the candles.

So the issue is this:— here we have an illustrative ritual (to use the technical term) that has, so to speak, arisen spontaneously among the faithful. It is one that the couple themselves do. There is no other illustrative ritual in the Rite of Marriage that speaks so powerfully and publicly in the Western world about the unifying of two families. Other cultures have the binding of hands with lassos, head coverings, shawls, coins, and so on; and these cultural expressions are permitted. So why not the Unity Candle? In the absence of such an illustrative ritual in the Northern/Western Church, could this one have arisen to, as it were, fill the gap?

It seems to this pastoral liturgist that trying to ban an illustrative ritual that actually speaks very powerfully to the couple and their families is counterproductive. Like the lassos, shawls, etc, can't the Unity Candle be viewed as an authentic evolution in the rite, rather than something to be discouraged?

(There are some practical aspects to this, however. For example, couples have a tendency to blow out the smaller candles when they have lit the larger one from them. I find myself having to explain to them that doing this could symbolise extinguishing the life of the two families, and yet this life continues! So better just to leave the smaller candles burning.)

[alan29]

SNIP
At the same time it is a time to look again at whether those others of us, who are not following EF, do faithfully follow the liturgical norms that are in force. Many things have crept in which are 'norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio' but not part of the current norms established in the liturgical books.

I wonder if SSG members or followers of this forum would like to highlight any? And think a about a process of renewal - which might give comfort to those others being pressed to change their ways.

To be fair the current Missal can be celebrated in Latin using plainsong, backs to the people and with smells and bells, vested "deacon" and "subdeacon" etc. Putting in place all the "holiness" and "reverence" they feel is lacking.
But exchanges with EF people have taught me that for many it really is about using the 1962 Missal (if they actually stick to that which some don't) as a signifier of the rejection of Vatican 2 and all that led from it.
Am I right in thinking that historically schisms have come where groups resisted decisions made in Councils? Nicaea, Chalcedon, Vat 1 spring to mind. The pope might just be accepting the inevitable.

[Hare]

There is a parish where the paid DOM was forced out of post. People missed the music as OF Masses are now silent. A private donor has funded semi=professional music at the weekly EF Mass. PP tells parish "You've got music"

[organist]

I think a bigger worry is young priests coming out of seminaries wanting to take us backwards. They are not keen on interfaith and ecumenism. They seem to think they are right and everybody else is wrong! Very worrying!! In one case I heard the first Mass was OP - nobody knew that would happen. How come??