www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Introducing the Motu Proprio: Summorum Pontificum

Me on the motu! [home.att.net]

How about this?

That which is neither evil in itself nor fobidden by law is, therefore, allowed. Nothing whatever in the two documents of 7/7/7 indicates that Pope Benedict XVI forbids the celebration of the 1962 Mass in vernacular languages. In 1962 there was already a considerable use of the vernacular (varying from one country to another), and more was coming. Vatican II legislated for a still greater use of the vernacular languages.

Until a translation in whatever language might be desired might be desired can be elaborated and receive the formal approval of the Holy See, those in need of such a translation can find several without much difficulty; there are hand-missals in print to match the 1962 missal.

I've already mentioned the English Missal several times. The translation of the Roman Canon in that book can certainly be improved, but the book does offer a starting point, so to speak.

In the immediate euphoria, calls for celebrations of the 1962 Missal in vernacular languages are apt to be hooted down. But the linguistic culture of the Western Church has undeniably changed, for better or for worse, so in the longer term there will be a need for vernacular celebrations. Rather than get into a fight, those who see this need would be well advised to embark upon the work of preparing suitable texts - and I am not referring to texts inspired by ICEL!

Fr. Serge

I think it is impossible to assume that the ICEL will not get involved. After all, they consider themselves to be professional liturgists.






When something isn't broke why fix it?

I guess that is part of man's ego. He wants to leave his mark on everything. Liturgists go amuck just like plastic surgeons do.

Pride and prelest continue to taint mankind.

Todd,

Thanks for the link. Look at the comparison chart of the 1962 Missal and the Ordo of Paul VI on page 27.

Not that anyone has an agenda or anything, especially with the last line. It reminds me of those "before and after" weight loss commercials...

Does anyone know whether it will be permitted to receive under both species when attending the extraordinary liturgy according to the 1962 form?

In ICXC,

Gordo

From what I read, it seems Rome has clipped the wings of ICEL a bit. ICEL's membership has changed and there is now another body, Vox Clara, that looks over its shoulder. This is not your father's ICEL anymore.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd guess no. There has been no discussion of developing the Missal and practices of the old liturgical practice. The discussion has been to allow it to be used again with the readings being allowed in the vernacular--something we already had in the 1950s. I've been told that the usage would be exactly as the books spell it out with no changes or alterations.

But, then, no one has officially spelled out in minute detail how this will be implemented either. In many dioceses Holy Communion under both species is still not normal practice with the Paul VI Missal because the local bishops have either not encouraged it or not given permission.

In Christ,

BOB

I might "consider myself" to be the Pope, or the Holy Roman Emperor, or the Tsar of Russia - or for that matter matter I might sincerely believe myself to be God. In the latter case, my sincere belief that I was God would not thereby cause me to become divine! In the former cases, no matter how much I "consider myself" the lawful holder of those positions, I would not thereby be able to take up residence in the Vatican, the Imperial Palace in Vienna, or the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg!

ICEL is past its sell-by date.

Fr. Serge

Bishop mourns Latin decree as Jews ask for clarity [uk.reuters.com]

One wonders how many people who are 'mourning' this 'affront to V2', including this above bishop, have actually read the documents of the 2nd Vatican council...

Good point. It amazes me that these folks who have essentially done as they pleased for years, often have little idea of what the council actually said. We have had a serious lack of leadership in the church for a number of years, extending all the way to the top. I have often said Pope Benedict is God's gift to the church, and I do believe some of these willful ex-flower children in the hierarchy are going to find him much harder to ignore than his predecessors.

byzanTN,


Becareful, you might get your post banned. There are some on this forum who think the leadership has been worthy of a "Great" title.

Gordo,

Hi. I think, based on my reading of the Motu proprio itself and my conversation with my local pastor, who has already been offering the TLM under the current provisions, that to start with, the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite will be celebrated AS IS, meaning according to the prevailing liturgical books and "customs" at the time, without introducing much that is different. My pastor told me that until now when parents have asked that their children be baptized according to the "Old Rite", he has been willing to accomodate them as long as they "kept it under their hats". His comment was that now, this request could be accomodated openly, as well as for weddings, funerals, etc. As a pastor this was his focus.

Going forward, various things are likely to "change" in a more organic fashion. Communion under both kinds may be one of them, but unless they adopt the method of intinction (which I noticed BVI used recently at St. Peter's when baptizing, confirming and giving First Communion to some neophytes), I cannot imagine that they would want to introduce the "Extraordinary Minister of Communion" business at all! With the shortage of clergy, this might argue against Communion under both kinds in the extraordinary form for now. This is just my guess.

Also, BTW, I have read somewhere in the last day or so that the effect of this Motu proprio was intended by John Paul the Great, but that he just never got to it!

Michael

Sorry for being so simplistic but still puzzled by this hang-up on the language of the "mass" that seems to come along with the ritual itself. Just was thinking of the so-called "old calendarist" Greeks who alined themselves with ROCOR. Went once to their church in Seattle (St Nektarios) and was impressed that on the one hand the Divine Liturgy was done completely in traditional Byzantine chant but that it was entirely in English. The local GOC parishes were using organs and singing still in Greek.

I wonder how many tears Bishop Brandolini shed in the 1960's, when statues, paintings and stained glass were removed from churches around the world, millions stopped attending mass, and the church began being plagued by one scandal after another.