Two links for your convenience:
Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum [Latin]
Letter to the Bishops that accompanies the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum [English]
Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog
blog
A couple of quick thoughts:-
In the letter to the bishops, when it talks of a "use," is it meaning a "Use" in its liturgical sense? Or is it trying to fudge that?
Secondly, I was taught that the Liturgy, in particular the Mass is an action of the whole church, and that my particular likes and dislikes just don't come into into it. Does this document then smack of subjectivism?
All very perplexing. I find that increasingly the Church that I thought I belonged to, I no longer feel at home in.
Alan
In the letter to the bishops, when it talks of a "use," is it meaning a "Use" in its liturgical sense? Or is it trying to fudge that?
Secondly, I was taught that the Liturgy, in particular the Mass is an action of the whole church, and that my particular likes and dislikes just don't come into into it. Does this document then smack of subjectivism?
All very perplexing. I find that increasingly the Church that I thought I belonged to, I no longer feel at home in.
Alan
-
Tsume Tsuyu
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:40 am
- Location: UK
Re: Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum
Er, my Latin is a little rusty (probably the understatement of the year!). Does anyone have an English translation handy? Rome has 'forgotten' to put up any translations.
TT
Not my translation...
Attenzione: è stata tradotta solo la parte dispositiva
del Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum
(…….)
... Our predecessor John Paul II having already considered the insistent petitions of these faithful, 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 § 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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.
§ 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 § 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 Deiâ€.
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 § 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.
§ 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.
§ 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 Deiâ€, erected by John Paul II in 1988, 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 decreedâ€, 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.
del Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum
(…….)
... Our predecessor John Paul II having already considered the insistent petitions of these faithful, 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 § 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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.
§ 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 § 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 Deiâ€.
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 § 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.
§ 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.
§ 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 Deiâ€, erected by John Paul II in 1988, 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 decreedâ€, 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.
And then, once more for the record, this is not about Latin.
Assuming that Pope Benedict still thinks as he did when he was a Cardinal, Latin is not the crunch point, for him the importance is preserving the liturgical heritage of the Church, rather than assuming that Vat II was a liturgical year zero. I said recently, on another posting that even the most celebrated of the experts who developed our current liturgy have expressed disappointment about how it was subsequently implemented.
Read carefully, the Motu, and its accompanying letter, is about both the ordinary and extraordinary form of the Roman Rite having something to learn from each other. The fact that Pope Benedict has 'unfrozen' the liturgical development of the extraordinary form suggests that this is not about returning to the past but shaping the future...Remains to be seen how many people, on both sides, can see beyond the rhetoric and their own preconceptions. (Note the challenges to the traditionalists such as: emphasising that permission for the readings to be in the vernacular has existed for ages, restated more recently by Ecclesia Dei, yet there are many Masses celebrated in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite at which Epistle and Gospel are in Latin still - the challenge to those priests who normally celebrate according to the 1962 Missal to be prepared at least to concelebrate in the Modern Roman Rite...)
PS - I'm not convinced that omitting vernacular translations was an oversight, not given the amendments that subsequently had to be made to Sacramentum Caritatis.
PPS if you want a bit of a laugh check out the video at http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/ - you might want to read the comments above it as well.
Assuming that Pope Benedict still thinks as he did when he was a Cardinal, Latin is not the crunch point, for him the importance is preserving the liturgical heritage of the Church, rather than assuming that Vat II was a liturgical year zero. I said recently, on another posting that even the most celebrated of the experts who developed our current liturgy have expressed disappointment about how it was subsequently implemented.
Read carefully, the Motu, and its accompanying letter, is about both the ordinary and extraordinary form of the Roman Rite having something to learn from each other. The fact that Pope Benedict has 'unfrozen' the liturgical development of the extraordinary form suggests that this is not about returning to the past but shaping the future...Remains to be seen how many people, on both sides, can see beyond the rhetoric and their own preconceptions. (Note the challenges to the traditionalists such as: emphasising that permission for the readings to be in the vernacular has existed for ages, restated more recently by Ecclesia Dei, yet there are many Masses celebrated in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite at which Epistle and Gospel are in Latin still - the challenge to those priests who normally celebrate according to the 1962 Missal to be prepared at least to concelebrate in the Modern Roman Rite...)
PS - I'm not convinced that omitting vernacular translations was an oversight, not given the amendments that subsequently had to be made to Sacramentum Caritatis.
PPS if you want a bit of a laugh check out the video at http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/ - you might want to read the comments above it as well.
-
John Ainslie
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am
There is at least one notable mistranslation in the unofficial English version that Reginald obtained.
In article 7, the bishop is not "strongly requested to satisfy their wishes", only to "listen" to them - "enixe rogatur ut eorum optatum exaudiat".
I am checking the translation to see whether there are any more instances of spin...
In article 7, the bishop is not "strongly requested to satisfy their wishes", only to "listen" to them - "enixe rogatur ut eorum optatum exaudiat".
I am checking the translation to see whether there are any more instances of spin...
-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
John Ainslie wrote:In article 7, the bishop is not "strongly requested to satisfy their wishes", only to "listen" to them - "enixe rogatur ut eorum optatum exaudiat".
I am checking the translation to see whether there are any more instances of spin...
Unofficial translation by USCCB says 'earnestly requested to grant their desire'
I'm struck by a few things:
1. article 5- 'In parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably, let the pastor willingly accede their requests for the [1962 rite]
not withstanding what article 4 says, does this mean that a priest who fancies using the 1962 missal can't foist it on an unprepared and unwilling congregation?
So if the document is adhered to, the use of thr 1962 rite will not end up that widespread because as the accompanying letter to Bps says
Pope wrote:The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.
The crux of the issue here is whether the document will be adhered to, or whether those who personally prefer using the 1962 rite for whatever reason will use it as a justification to ride roughshod over pastoral sensitivity.
This is about the continuity and equal validity of both rights in an attempt to heal some of the divisions that have festered since the council. I have no problem at all with the concept that these are 'two uses of the one Roman Rite' but do all those who champion the 1962 Missal feel the same way?
In the accompanying letter, there is a clear attempt at collegiality that we haven't had for a while- a review in 3 years time. But frankly I think the pope is wide of the mark when he says that the attachment to the 1962 rite was "especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation"
Will it help to heal divisions? I hope so, but I suspect that it may well widen them at a grass roots level
Most of all folks. We do not yet have an official English translation, before we plung on in this debate, should we hang fire a while until one becomes available?
Nick - as the forum's arch-traditionalist I'm with you one hundred percent on what happens in our Cathedrals - notwithstanding the fact that Cathedrals and major basilicas have been explicitly charged with preserving our musical heritage (including sacred polyphony) since 1968 - the thrust of Pius X's Motu Proprio still stands - not least because it's been reiterated by every pope since (with the possible exception of JP I) and is still found in the documents of Vat II and the GIRM. There's absolutely no reason that the chants of the Graduale Simplex can't be used by a congregation supported by a schola, and there's absolutely no reason why simple chants can't be used for the ordinary of the Mass. I'm picking my way through Jubilate Deo at school, and consistently they sing chant better than everything else except Shiney Jesus. My biggest obstacle is the attitude of those 10/20/30 years older than me who remember how things were in the bad old days of 20 minute Sunday Low Masses, the challenge is to persuade them that we're heading for the undiscovered country rather than back to the past (passing reference to Star Trek VI identifies me as being eligible for geek treatment in so many more categories than just liturgy and Wurlitzers!).
The smart money will be on those who use the dialogue Mass format, encourage the use of simple chants at Mass, explore the use of Introit, Offertory and Communion chants as sometimes seen at Westminster, use a vernacular text for the readings at Mass (preferably without feeling the need to read them in Latin first) and are prepared to celebrate Mass either facing with the people or facing the people depending on what their congregations are ready to accept now. More than that, provision was made for hymns in the vernacular by Pius XII. Simple, modern, vernacular settings of the chants of the Mass, with their psalm verses could see us attending mass in the extraordinary form of the rite with musical settings by Chris Walker/Paul Inwood/Bob Hurd - and if any of them have set the Latin texts of the ordinary, or were to do so, then...well, we can dream about it can't we?
Picking up some of the other points raised:
The translation I provided is the 'unofficial' translation provided by the Vatican - you should note that there are supposedly elements of spin in both directions.
I don't think that a priest can 'foist' the extraordinary form on their congregation, but they can celebrate the Mass privately if they so wish - and let the people know when they're celebrating the private Mass. I know of several priests who, in the recent past have been instructed not to say private Masses in their own churches using the 1962 missal.
For those who think Benedict's turning his back on Vat II, what an example of the empowerment of the laity, that we can request the extraordinary form of our priests, and if they can't/won't provide it the Bishop has to do his best before calling Ecclesia Dei for back up if necessary! I know a good many priests who won't like the fact that this can happen on the initiative of the laity!
I think I know what Pope Benedict means when he talks about love of the 'ancient rite' being strongest in those countries where liturgical education was at its strongest in the run up to the Council. Take Germany and France as two examples where the pre-conciliar liturgical movement was at its strongest. Readings in the vernacular were common in some dioceses before the council - we had to wait until the mid 60s for the most part. Dialogue Masses and simple chant for the people to sing were also common in some areas - before the council the dialogue Mass was outright banned in 3 English dioceses and not in common use in the others. Their experience of the Mass, prior to Vat II, was light years away from the experiences of many in the Church. B XVI is, I think, suggesting that they lost more than we, and therefore felt the loss more keenly.
For what it's worth, I would support a dialogue Mass, with vernacular readings, not out of some misty eyed nostalgia for the past, in the sure knowledge that things were not always great in the past, but because I'm really excited about what the liturgy might evolve into if it gets the right support.
The smart money will be on those who use the dialogue Mass format, encourage the use of simple chants at Mass, explore the use of Introit, Offertory and Communion chants as sometimes seen at Westminster, use a vernacular text for the readings at Mass (preferably without feeling the need to read them in Latin first) and are prepared to celebrate Mass either facing with the people or facing the people depending on what their congregations are ready to accept now. More than that, provision was made for hymns in the vernacular by Pius XII. Simple, modern, vernacular settings of the chants of the Mass, with their psalm verses could see us attending mass in the extraordinary form of the rite with musical settings by Chris Walker/Paul Inwood/Bob Hurd - and if any of them have set the Latin texts of the ordinary, or were to do so, then...well, we can dream about it can't we?
Picking up some of the other points raised:
The translation I provided is the 'unofficial' translation provided by the Vatican - you should note that there are supposedly elements of spin in both directions.
I don't think that a priest can 'foist' the extraordinary form on their congregation, but they can celebrate the Mass privately if they so wish - and let the people know when they're celebrating the private Mass. I know of several priests who, in the recent past have been instructed not to say private Masses in their own churches using the 1962 missal.
For those who think Benedict's turning his back on Vat II, what an example of the empowerment of the laity, that we can request the extraordinary form of our priests, and if they can't/won't provide it the Bishop has to do his best before calling Ecclesia Dei for back up if necessary! I know a good many priests who won't like the fact that this can happen on the initiative of the laity!
I think I know what Pope Benedict means when he talks about love of the 'ancient rite' being strongest in those countries where liturgical education was at its strongest in the run up to the Council. Take Germany and France as two examples where the pre-conciliar liturgical movement was at its strongest. Readings in the vernacular were common in some dioceses before the council - we had to wait until the mid 60s for the most part. Dialogue Masses and simple chant for the people to sing were also common in some areas - before the council the dialogue Mass was outright banned in 3 English dioceses and not in common use in the others. Their experience of the Mass, prior to Vat II, was light years away from the experiences of many in the Church. B XVI is, I think, suggesting that they lost more than we, and therefore felt the loss more keenly.
For what it's worth, I would support a dialogue Mass, with vernacular readings, not out of some misty eyed nostalgia for the past, in the sure knowledge that things were not always great in the past, but because I'm really excited about what the liturgy might evolve into if it gets the right support.
Reginald, thanks for the translation and for the time you would have spent on it. It'll be interesting to see where we go from here - with possibly two differing rites in the same deanery or even the same parish.
From what I understand, the Holy Father wishes the liturgy to act as an agent of evangelisation. I hope this initiative is successful. The Tridentine Mass is a beautiful liturgy - and it wasn't meant to be intelligible to the majority of worshippers. Perhaps bringing it back could actually give us back a sense of awe, wonder and respect in the presence of the Unknowable:?:
What is the situation with responses at a Tridentine Mass? Pope Pius X11 introduced the 'Dialogue Mass' - or will the priest be doing his thing while worshippers meditate or pray?
From what I understand, the Holy Father wishes the liturgy to act as an agent of evangelisation. I hope this initiative is successful. The Tridentine Mass is a beautiful liturgy - and it wasn't meant to be intelligible to the majority of worshippers. Perhaps bringing it back could actually give us back a sense of awe, wonder and respect in the presence of the Unknowable:?:
What is the situation with responses at a Tridentine Mass? Pope Pius X11 introduced the 'Dialogue Mass' - or will the priest be doing his thing while worshippers meditate or pray?
JW
Am I right in thinking that there is an implication that the members of a parish have to ask their own pastor for the old rite? I see no mention of groups of people from different parishes being able to club together to make this ...... I'm not sure quite what word to use here. Is it a request or is it a demand when it can be backed up by an approach to the bishop?
Why is it that I a 58 year old who has been practicing all my life, all over the country have never, ever heard anyone hanker after the old liturgy? Where exactly has the pressure come from? Reginald suggests that one place might be from people who have not regularly experienced the old rite. Another is certainly from people who have a theological and political agenda that few would subscribe to.
I do know that this decision has deeply saddened many friends who see it as compromising the unity of the church.
Alan
Why is it that I a 58 year old who has been practicing all my life, all over the country have never, ever heard anyone hanker after the old liturgy? Where exactly has the pressure come from? Reginald suggests that one place might be from people who have not regularly experienced the old rite. Another is certainly from people who have a theological and political agenda that few would subscribe to.
I do know that this decision has deeply saddened many friends who see it as compromising the unity of the church.
Alan
-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
Of course the whole document assumes that your average parish priest knows how to say a Tridentine Mass, should some of his parishioners request it. I'd be surprised if this is generally true.
There will need to be some form of training, both for clergy and other liturgical ministers, otherwise the undiscoverd country that we're heading to might actually be worse than the past.
Alan of the twentyninth variety made this point on the Latin Masses thread some while back.
There will need to be some form of training, both for clergy and other liturgical ministers, otherwise the undiscoverd country that we're heading to might actually be worse than the past.
Alan of the twentyninth variety made this point on the Latin Masses thread some while back.
And again, in no particular order:
Two expressions of the same rite can't, in my opinion, be damaging to the unity of the Church when you consider that there are over 20 different rites permitted within the worldwide Church. Do I not feel that I belong to the same Church as the Syro-Malabar people that worshipped at our cathedral last Saturday? Do I not feel that I belong to the same Church as the Chaldean Catholics currently being persecuted in Iraq? Did people, pre-Vat II feel it damaged the unity of the Church that the Dominicans and Carmelites had their own rites? Of course not. Back to Star Trek geek mode "There is no offence where none is taken" - it's only damaging to unity if we decide to let it be.
Training is, I believe, being offered by the Latin Mass Society in Oxford over the summer - and I think they've 'mailshot' the clergy. In the States, two courses offering training have already sold out.
As regards, Political/Theological agendas. Sure, there are a lot of Telegraph readers hankering after the extraordinary form...me, I'm just placing my trust in B XVI - I've read what he has to say and want to go along for the ride. Said it before...read "Spirit of the Liturgy", it all becomes less suspicious and easier to understand afterwards.
Nick - tell me you'd sooner have a Willis organ than a continental tracker action squeeze-box and we truly may be brothers!
Two expressions of the same rite can't, in my opinion, be damaging to the unity of the Church when you consider that there are over 20 different rites permitted within the worldwide Church. Do I not feel that I belong to the same Church as the Syro-Malabar people that worshipped at our cathedral last Saturday? Do I not feel that I belong to the same Church as the Chaldean Catholics currently being persecuted in Iraq? Did people, pre-Vat II feel it damaged the unity of the Church that the Dominicans and Carmelites had their own rites? Of course not. Back to Star Trek geek mode "There is no offence where none is taken" - it's only damaging to unity if we decide to let it be.
Training is, I believe, being offered by the Latin Mass Society in Oxford over the summer - and I think they've 'mailshot' the clergy. In the States, two courses offering training have already sold out.
As regards, Political/Theological agendas. Sure, there are a lot of Telegraph readers hankering after the extraordinary form...me, I'm just placing my trust in B XVI - I've read what he has to say and want to go along for the ride. Said it before...read "Spirit of the Liturgy", it all becomes less suspicious and easier to understand afterwards.
Nick - tell me you'd sooner have a Willis organ than a continental tracker action squeeze-box and we truly may be brothers!
I am particularly looking forward to singing "Follow me, follow me" and "Here I am Lord" in Latin. After all they are only the newer equivalent of "Sweet Sacrament Divine." 
But seriously, I think it is damaging to the unity of the church because the question of which Missal is used is often bound up with views on the legitimacy of Vat II in general. Liturgy is not just a matter of choreography, language and music. It expresses what the church is. The unity of worship expresses the unity of the church.
This has nothing to do with the Liturgical Rites of the Eastern Churches. It is interesting that in the main, the separateness of the Eastern Churches from each other and from Rome is expressed precisely in their different liturgies. So the Chalcedonian churches generally use one liturgy, while the non-Chalcedonian churches use others - and there is generally no communion across the liturgical divides because they express theological and ethnic divides. Uniate churches are another matter entirely. They are usually the product of political judgements. Even they are engaged in the process of liturgical reform at the moment - often shaking off Roman accretions to their liturgies.
We are dealing with something different here. This is people within one Rite, the Roman Rite worshipping in ways that are designed specifically to express ease/unease with the direction the church has taken since Vat II, and to express their difference from the other side in the debate. This is precisely why I see it as an attack on the unity of the church which above all the pope is charged to protect.
But seriously, I think it is damaging to the unity of the church because the question of which Missal is used is often bound up with views on the legitimacy of Vat II in general. Liturgy is not just a matter of choreography, language and music. It expresses what the church is. The unity of worship expresses the unity of the church.
This has nothing to do with the Liturgical Rites of the Eastern Churches. It is interesting that in the main, the separateness of the Eastern Churches from each other and from Rome is expressed precisely in their different liturgies. So the Chalcedonian churches generally use one liturgy, while the non-Chalcedonian churches use others - and there is generally no communion across the liturgical divides because they express theological and ethnic divides. Uniate churches are another matter entirely. They are usually the product of political judgements. Even they are engaged in the process of liturgical reform at the moment - often shaking off Roman accretions to their liturgies.
We are dealing with something different here. This is people within one Rite, the Roman Rite worshipping in ways that are designed specifically to express ease/unease with the direction the church has taken since Vat II, and to express their difference from the other side in the debate. This is precisely why I see it as an attack on the unity of the church which above all the pope is charged to protect.
alan29 wrote:...But seriously, I think it is damaging to the unity of the church because the question of which Missal is used is often bound up with views on the legitimacy of Vat II in general. Liturgy is not just a matter of choreography, language and music. It expresses what the church is. The unity of worship expresses the unity of the church.
...This is people within one Rite, the Roman Rite worshipping in ways that are designed specifically to express ease/unease with the direction the church has taken since Vat II, and to express their difference from the other side in the debate. This is precisely why I see it as an attack on the unity of the church which above all the pope is charged to protect.
Cardinal Arinze makes a compelling case for there being no substantial difference between the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Roman Rite if the ordinary form is celebrated a particular way. On a weekday the differences would likely be Prayers at the foot of the altar, the offertory prayers and the dismissal. In practice there would be lots of other differences - from vesture to orientation, but none of these were mandated by the council. B XVI explicitly addresses the issue of those who would challenge the legitimacy of the council by challenging priests who use the Ex Form of the Roman Rite to use the Ord Form even if only occasionally, and by emphasising the surprising number of young people who are drawn to the Ex Form. Is it not likely that B XVI, by 'unfreezing' the Ex Form is trying to move to a situation where the two meet in the middle?
Of course you're right that for some, questions of liturgy may be bound up with questions on the legitimacy of Vat II - for me it's about putting Christ back at the centre of the liturgical action and reconnecting with what sustained the Church for some 1500 years prior to the Council (and yes, challenge the numbers but you get the point).
Nick - shame on you - that Austrian accordeon over a full throated English Cathedral organ!
"For me it's about putting Christ back at the centre of the liturgical action and reconnecting with what sustained the Church for some 1500 years prior to the Council"
___________________________________________________________
Erm there is a pretty disgraceful implication in the first part of the quote, I am not aware that celebrations I have helped plan have had anyone other than Christ at their centre, indeed if they haven't, then we should all pack up and go home. There are assertions made that the newer rite allows too much prominence to the wishes of the celebrant. Clearly those who make the assertions are blind to the spectacle of men dressed in acres of lace parading around in clouds of incense.
Secondly it is just plain wrong to assert that the Roman Rite remained unchanged for any number of years. The 1570 Tridentine Missal was altered in 1604, 1643, 1911, 1920, and 1962. Prior to that there were a large number of local Uses. It is interesting that when Trent abolished the local uses, the English Catholics did not petition to retain the Sarum Missal because they explicitly wanted to show their loyalty to the Pope. When the hierarchy was restored there was a chance of restoring the Sarum Rite. Again English Catholics wanted to show their unity with the Pope by using the current Roman Missal. It is only with the latest revisions that there has been a problem with people objecting to the point of schism.
Alan
___________________________________________________________
Erm there is a pretty disgraceful implication in the first part of the quote, I am not aware that celebrations I have helped plan have had anyone other than Christ at their centre, indeed if they haven't, then we should all pack up and go home. There are assertions made that the newer rite allows too much prominence to the wishes of the celebrant. Clearly those who make the assertions are blind to the spectacle of men dressed in acres of lace parading around in clouds of incense.
Secondly it is just plain wrong to assert that the Roman Rite remained unchanged for any number of years. The 1570 Tridentine Missal was altered in 1604, 1643, 1911, 1920, and 1962. Prior to that there were a large number of local Uses. It is interesting that when Trent abolished the local uses, the English Catholics did not petition to retain the Sarum Missal because they explicitly wanted to show their loyalty to the Pope. When the hierarchy was restored there was a chance of restoring the Sarum Rite. Again English Catholics wanted to show their unity with the Pope by using the current Roman Missal. It is only with the latest revisions that there has been a problem with people objecting to the point of schism.
Alan