www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall New Clarification of the MP for Latin Catholic Bishops!

This was just too funny to be ignored...

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/008612.php

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

That's great Gordo

Fr. Z says he was told at the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei that the document should be out "before Easter." So, not necessarily in the next few days or anything.

Alexis

Alexis,

Maybe it takes a while to come up with the kinds of "small words" and good illustrations promised?

Best,
Michael

I love it! But it would be even more fun actually to produce such a book!

Though this thread is tongue-in-cheek, what about the actual priests who have never had a Latin class who are scared stiff at the prospect of trying to celebrate a Mass using this form? I don't know many priests, if any, in my diocese who have had a Latin class in their formation who are also under the age of 60.

How would you go about celebrating in a language you had no knowledge of, even a rudimentary knowledge of pronunciation? That doesn't even touch the rubrics for a form many have not seen in decades and never had any training in. Would anyone be gung-ho about pushing these same priests to celebrate the Byzantine Divine Liturgy without ever having seen it or studied it?

Maybe that's why the bishops are moving a bit more slowly than those most enthusaistic about the permission wish they would. What about scandal? What happens when a priest, poorly trained or not trained at all, fumbles through this and causes an uproar?

BOB

Bob,

Are you missing something here? Those priest don't have to say the Traditional Latin Mass. However, a priest who does know how to say the Traditional Latin Mass may walk into any Catholic Church and do so as he pleases (with the exception of Holy Friday in which only one Mass can be said).

I didn't know Roman Catholics celebrate a Eucharistic Liturgy on Great Friday?

Ung

The pronunciation is quite easy as it is pronounced like Italian after St. Pius X mandated a uniform pronunciation.

And the priests who went to the North American College should already know how to pronounce Italian.

Now, the rubrics are another thing.

When I was thinking of being a Latin priest, I asked my vocation director if I could offer the Latin Mass. He said that it would be hard for the laity of one's parish to follow at the time. I also asked a very "traditional" priest if after the Moto Proprio if he would now offer the Latin Mass and he said that he wouldn't as it would be too abrupt for the people of his parish and there really wasn't much interest.

I thought that Good (Great) Friday was the only time of the liturgical year that Roman Catholics celebrate the St. Romanos Vespers w/Pre-Sanctified Eucharist also being distributed?

Ung

Roman Catholics celebrate a version of the Liturgy of the
Pre-Sanctified on Good Friday, although the form differs considerably from the Byzantine. In neither tradition
is Holy Liturgy celebrated on that day. As to the connection
of St. Romanos with the Roman rite of Great and Holy Friday
I have no clue. It is also the only day that I know of on which
Roman priests do full prostrations. In the Byzantine Rite they
are mandated for everyone (who can do them), at least in the
Russian use, at the veneration of the Shroud on Great and Holy
Friday, not to mention at Pre-Sanctified (13 times is my count).

Edmac

Ray you are incorrect on several counts.
A prist may not walk into any Catholic Church and Celebrate the Mass. He needs the permision of the Pastor to do so.
Secondly, Mass is NEVER said on Good Friday.
There is an equivelent Liturgy of the Presanctified, there is no consecration.
Stephanos I
People are not even able to celebrate and respond in Latin, let alone the Priest.
We have tried to re introduce some Latin into the Liturgy, like singing the gloria, credo, sanctus and agnus dei, but with very little success. People just stand there with a blank look on their faces.

The agnus dei is being and has been done for a couple of years or so now in the local Latin prarish here but none of the other responses in Latin. The congregation, for the most part, does quite well with it.

Get this...

A local priest here in the Indy suburbs in one of the best parishes I've seen in the northern suburbs (even though it's in an office building) has the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei in Latin.

I asked him if he was going to add more Latin or to offer the TLM in the new church they are building. He said that he didn't know if he would, but probably not. He did say that he did put some Latin in because as Catholics it's part of our heritage. Sort of like an ethnic culture. And, if we lose that Latin it's like an ethnic group that moves to a new nation and stops speaking its language and performing some of the little traditional "rituals" and becomes part of white bread America (you may substitute Cream of Wheat.)

Bob,


It is certainly understandable that a Priest who knows no Latin, nor rubrics, would be concerned at being compelled to celebrate the TLM/EF. But they are not being required to do so, and they are not the target of the spoof.

Summorum Pontificum, inter alia, makes it clear that priests of the Roman Rite need to know some Latin as part of the ars celebrandi. This actually goes all the way back to Vatican II where the bishops voted to retain Latin in the Roman Rite, as well as Gregorian chant. They don't need the fluency of St. Jerome. There is a reasonably sizable group of priests and seminarians in the US who either have some Latin, or are willing to learn Latin sufficiently to be able to celebrate both the TLM and the NO in Latin (at least partially), but who were not able to do so because of pressure against it. The Pope has not asked for immediate change, nor that all have to move in this direction.

The real problem, and the reason for the spoof, it seems to me, is that not a few Ordinaries, around the world, have issued "guidelines" --or worse-- that curtail the directives of the Motu proprio in ways which are canonically inappropriate, according to the customs of the Latin Church. The Pope asked for generosity to bring about reconciliation within the Church, and these bishops reacted with defiance, if not spite. He "derestricted" by overruling the need for an indult; they reimposed restrictions.

Often, they asserted their rights as "chief liturgist", and emphasized that they were "in charge." One rarely sees such an assertion of responsibility, or even interest, when there is a case of an egregious lack of respect, or even sacrilege, under the Ordinary Form. IMO, that's what makes the idea of the book ironic.

Best,
Michael