Posted on 06/18/2004 12:26:59 PM PDT by Tantumergo
THE VATICAN is preparing to relax the rules on the provision of the Tridentine rite, a senior cardinal has disclosed.
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, told The Lat in Mass, America’s leading traditionalist magazine, that the Vatican was preparing to issue a “juridical guarantee” in favour of the Tridentine rite, which was the Church’s official rite from the 16th century until 1962.
Cardinal Hoyos’ remarks are a clear indication that Rome wants to embrace traditionalists by ensuring that they can attend old rite Masses if they so wish. The cardinal praised the Tridentine rite, and acknowledged the growing numbers of traditionalist Catholics, before giving cause to hope that restrictions on the old rite might be lifted.
Priests are allowed to celebrate the Tridentine rite, as long as they obtain permission from their local bishop. Pope John Paul established this privilege in 1988, when he excommunicated Swiss Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his ultra-traditionalist followers. The Vatican hoped that the indult contained in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei would mean that opponents of liturgical reforms could remain in communion with the Church, and not be drawn into schismatic groups such as the Society of St Pius X. Traditionalists complain, however, that many bishops are not generous in the provision of the Tridentine rite.
Furthermore, controversy over the new rite has increased rather than subsided, with many Catholics demoralised by liturgical abuses that have occurred since the old rite was replaced in the 1960s.
Any further reform would highlight the paradox running through liturgical debate in the Church: traditionalists are now the ones clamouring for change, while liberals are defending the status quo.
Cardinal Hoyos said: “The idea is constantly growing that it has become necessary to provide for the concession of the indult in a broader fashion that would correspond more with the reality of the situation. “It is thought that the times are mature for a new and clearer form of juridical guarantee of that right, which has already been recognised by the Holy Father with the 1988 indult.”
He explained that the cardinals, and the bishops of Ecclesia Dei, a pontifical commission set up to oversee the implementation of the indult, have all studied the matter carefully, and are trying to thrash out the best possible solution.
John Medlin, development manager for the Latin Mass Society, said he was excited by the cardinal’s comments. “Rome is signaling that it is prepared to use the transcendent nature of the traditional Mass as a standard to rein in the abuse in the new rite,” he said. “We are beginning to hear the death knell of liberalism in the Church and not before time.”
Mr Medlin added that one of the most obvious solutions would be to allow priests to decide whether they want to celebrate the Tridentine Mass publicly or not, regardless of diocesan consent, “What might happen is that you get a situation where instead of a tradi- tional Catholic having to prove that he or she must have the traditional Mass, the local bishop will have to explain to Rome why he or she should not.”
Cardinal Hoyos did not say what the juridical guarantee would entail. The “dream scenario” for traditionalists would be if the Holy See created a world-wide apostolic administration for the celebration of the old rite, similar to what has happened on a local scale in Campos, Brazil. But the cardinal stressed that the Campos example was not a sign of things to come, but a “consequence of specific local conditions.”
Bishop Mark Jabale of Menevia, chairman of the Department of Christian Life and Worship of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said there was “very close cooperation” between the bishops and the Vatican on the subject of liturgy.
“The bishops of England and Wales have, whenever asked, agreed to provide adequate, and in many cases generous provision,” he said. “Advice has been sought from Cardinal Francis Arinze [prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments], and Cardinal Hoyos, and they have confirmed that ample provision is available.”
Mr Medlin did not agree. “Some bishops are generous,” he said. “Other bishops are stingy.”
I haven't been able to find this on google news. I hope this is not a hoax.
Thanks for the summary. My copy of LM magazine has not arrived. I'll look for the article.
See, I don't get this.
Your bishop actually trashes his own priests?
We've got all kinds of priests and deacons in our diocese, and, when we get together, everybody knows everybody else, and nobody is excluded, or ripped, or criticized. We've got factions, to be sure, but it just never occurred to me to not embrace a brother priest or deacon.
And our bishop feels the same way.
This pettiness in the priesthood must be prevalent where there are lots of gays.
Well, what did Saylor do?
This priest talked to the Wanderer about the abuses, liturgical, theological, and sexual, in this diocese over the decades. Thus the letter above.
The interview with Cardinal Hoyos was posted on FR a couple of weeks ago.
Shut up in terror of losing his health insurance and pension. In this diocese the priests never paid in to social security, so they are completely dependent on the diocesan pension. And Adamec is vindictive enough that he might try to take it away from a good priest like Saylor.
"The vast majority of priests who said the Tridentine Mass prior to 1962 didn't understand one single word of what they were saying."
How in the world do you know that?
I attended too many sub-20-minute masses as a kid.
A Low Mass during the week with no singing or homily, and the usual small attendance usually did take about 20 minutes. I served for several years at these Masses, but I never jumped to the conclusion that the priests did not understand their Latin.
Especially after the several years of Latin they took in the seminary, on top of the usual 2-4 years in high school (since many priests had gone to Catholic high schools in those days).
I only had two years of Latin, but I understand the texts of the Tridentine Mass very well. And that's not bragging, because in general I'm terrible in languages.
So I would think that a priest who attended the Tridentine Mass (with his missal) from his boyhood days, and then was trained throughout seminary in this same Mass, and then offered it every day of his priestly life, would probably understand what he was saying.
If he didn't , I would jump to the conclusion that he was just plain stupid. But I can't imagine how he would get through college and seminary if that were the case, especially with the rigorous training in those days.
So maybe this is just your own opinion?
Of course. Just as it is your opinion that priests understood every word of what they were saying.
So, we're at a standstill.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I just cringe a little whenever I hear that the Latin Mass is so unintelligible, and that the new Mass is so vastly superior simply because it's in the vernacular.
I'm not saying you implied this. Only that it's often put forth as an objection to the Tridentine Mass.
And yes, I know that the Council wished to have more of the Mass in the vernacular. I don't have a problem with that, or even with the new Mass.
I have a problem with those liberals who wish to stamp out the Tridentine Mass, because it so uncomfortably refuses to mesh with their "anything goes" liturgical ambitions.
Doesn't matter, even if it were accurate, which I don't think it is. Certainly most of the faithful didn't understand as much Latin as they might have.
People are drawn to traditional things, the prayers of the traditional mass in Latin symbolically united the faithful to all of the generations before in a way that the vulgar tongue cannot. Of course the vernacular does too, in a theological sense alone, but the symbolic sense, the way the people see it, is important.
The record of the church since the introduction of the vernacular has been decline, less churches, less schools, less nuns, less folks in the pews. Liturgical language has a purpose, I fully expect that sooner or later, Latin will come back just as Hebrew was reintroduced as the language of Reform Judaism after a considerable hiatus.
But it will definitely take time, a major commitment would have to be made and just a statement by a cardinal ain't going to do it.
"The vast majority of priests who said the Tridentine Mass prior to 1962 didn't understand one single word of what they were saying."
This is the most nonsensical thing you've said to date. It is so demonstrably false as to be ludicrous. Seminarians in the preconciliar period took their EXAMS in Latin. They entered the seminary already having taken a half dozen courses in college or high school Latin. Many also had Greek under their belts. Ask any priest over sixty who was around back then.
Don't get your hopes up. This seems like wishful thinking on Hoyos' part. He talks about studying the situation further. The term "juridical guarantee" is not any kind of official term, it's a speculative concept on the Cardinal's part. Hoyos uses the future tense and presents the whole idea as being in the realm of possibility only. It's all very iffy, if you ask me.
Meanwhile, even more significant was his response to the direct question of how the Pope views traditionalists. He gave what I consider a non-answer, bringing up the old argument about the motu proprio--as if that somehow signified the Pope's favor. It certainly does not. The Indult was a ploy to divide the SSPX and nothing more. Had the Pope wanted the Indult to truly succeed, he would not have acted so harshly to punish it a few years ago--on a trifling matter.
The opposite is more likely true, if you ask me. When the Pope granted the Indult for the FSSP, he said he did so so that the priests might continue to follow "their spiritual and liturgical traditions." --As if those traditions were any different from his own! The truth is, JPII has little regard for the movement and shows this in myriad ways. Had he wanted to encourage its growth, he would have issued the kind of praise he routinely lavishes on other groups and persons. He knows how to encourage and give praise when he wants to. But his attention is only grudging at best. When he met with indult priests and seminarians not many years ago, he admonished them rather than praised them for their successes.
This interview is a gross disappointment. It reenforces my sense that there are two factions in Rome vying for dominance--the one to which Hoyos subscribes which looks with favor on the traditionalist movement in general and which is using the media to encourage the movement, and the modernists who remain in fierce opposition to anything from the past. The Pope, in my opinion, belongs with the latter group, or, at the very least, has decided to remain neutral and to allow them to spread their falsehoods without interference.
When and how did the Pope "punish" the indult movement?
As if those traditions were any different from his own
However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety ... To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations.
When he met with indult priests and seminarians not many years ago, he admonished them rather than praised them for their successes.
Source?
"When and how did the Pope "punish" the indult movement? "
Here's how:
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/semi-traditionalists.asp
I'd still lke to know why "The Catholic Herald" in the UK seems to be the only publication in the world to have this insider information.
I even went to their website to read the article first hand, and found nothing but an empty website.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.