Skip to comments.The New Order of the Mass takes its next step on Monday
Posted on 07/16/2006 3:35:44 PM PDT by NYer
For all you liturgy-junkies, just a quick heads-up that another Vox Clara convocation begins in Rome on Monday.
The committee on English-language translations has doubled its meeting schedule this year to four sessions, and this one's order of business will be twofold. First up is the initial review on the amended translations of the Order of Mass approved by the episcopal conferences of the United States and Canada since VC last met at the end of May. As the amendments were approved gingerly, it has been said that the recognitio of the revised Order of Mass could be granted by late fall.
"...In a November letter to Vox Clara, Pope Benedict XVI expressed his wish that "the translation into English of the latest edition of the Missale Romanum may soon be completed, so that the faithful throughout the English-speaking world may benefit from the use of liturgical texts accurately rendered in accordance with the norms of the Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam." [More...]
Not too soon for me. :)
Looking back, the mania of the modernists for liturgical reform is striking. The worst kind of clericalism is driven by a will to power. This was exibited in the ceaseless experimention of the first ten years after the Council. No pious practice was respected. I am reminded of the Abbe Sieyes, of French revolutionary times, who thought he could concoct a viable national constitution out his own imagination. Tyranny was the actual result of his delusions, as Burke warned him. Many a parish priest fancied himself as a playwright and the mass as a manuscript to be tinkered with according to his tastes.
Don't trust all that Rocco says on things liturgical. This is from Father Zuhlsdorf's blog this AM. Interpret it as you will.
The worst kind of clericalism is driven by a will to power.
The thing that is odd is that clericalism was one of the things that VatII was supposed to do away with, but instead it had the bizarre effect of actually increasing it, making clergy feel that nothing, including the traditions of the Church, was superior to them. It also gave lay people an undying thirst to feel part of the clergy in some way (hence the five million "ministries"), rather than encouraging them to feel that their particular vocation was just as good. Very odd.
**First up is the initial review on the amended translations of the Order of Mass approved by the episcopal conferences of the United States**
The outcome will be interesting to follow. I wonder if it will all be hush-hush until we get the official word or if some bishop will blab????
More interesting news. This is from the New Liturgical Movement blog.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Fessio on Benedict: Inside the Vatican
Interview with Fr Joseph Fessio, SJ.
(The following interview appears in the forthcoming August issue of Inside the Vatican magazine.)
- by Andrew Rabel
Fr Joseph Fessio SJ was a keynote speaker at the national conference of the Australian Catholic Students Association on the weekend of July 7-9 in Newman College at the University of Melbourne.
Fr Fessio is the founder and director of Ignatius Press, the largest Catholic publishing house in the US, and the Provost of Ave Maria College in Naples, Florida. A regular commentator on Catholic affairs, he did his doctoral thesis on Hans Urs Von Balthasar under then Professor Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, at the University of Regensburg, Bavaria in 1975.
In 1996, he founded Adoremus to push Cardinal Raztingers goal of the reform of the reform. As a close friend of the Holy Father, he has a unique perspective to comment on the affairs and controverises within the Church. At the conference, ITV was able to sit down with Fr Fessio and discuss some of these with him.
1. With the election of Pope Benedict, many of his supporters expected a tough crackdown on dissenters in the Church. But it seems that the Holy Father is moving at his own pace in those areas, to the impatience of some of his diehard following. Is the reaction of some columnists a fair one?
I dont think it is fair. I think he has continued what he has done as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in responding to serious problems that have come to his attention. But he is someone who works slowly but very surely in a certain direction, and I have not seen any problem that he is aware of that he is not taken steps to address. That may not please some people, but he has a lot of things he has to do.
2. Are his recent appointments in the Curia significant, or are they just the result of personnel who needed to be moved, because the incumbents were aged?
I think the answer to that is both. Clearly, when he makes a decision to merge the Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue with Culture; and merged the Immigration Council with that of Justice & Peace, he has a plan and I cant believe that plan is limited to those particular dicasteries. So I am convinced that he from his long experience of being in the Vatican, knows the direction he wants to move in, but rather than imposing that as something from above, he is waiting for opportunities to advance the plan.
I think a good example is the Secretary of State. Cardinal Sodano was past retirement age, and it was important for the Holy Father to have someone in that position who he could work well with. He chose Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, someone he has every confidence in, and worked with him for over eight years as Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will I think straighten the Popes ability to carry out reforms and plans he has.
3. What is your opinion over the appointment of your old bishop, Cardinal William Levada of San Francisco in Pope Benedicts previous position as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
Its an appointment which has puzzled man people. Certainly, Cardinal Levada is a loyal member of the Church, and is supportive of the Holy Father. It is also difficult for anyone to fill the shoes of Cardinal Ratzinger himself, when he was so extraordinary at doing this job.
As a matter of fact, I am not sure that this office is quite as important as people think it is. I think what made people believe it was so important was the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect.
There was some speculation after the election of the Pope, there would be no one to replace him because he would bring all of this activity under his own direction [before the election of Pius XII, Pacelli had been Secretary of State and when he became Pope largely seconded that dicastery]. In a sense, we have a Pope who is a very doctrinal and theological man and therefore while he certainly needs the help of an important staff and in different curial offices, he doesnt need to find someone of his own stature which would be very hard to find anywhere.
I think that the Holy Father picked someone that he knew could work with him, and even in the Holy Office itself, it wasnt a one-man-show. One of the things Cardinal Ratzinger did inside it was set up a collaborative structure, where there was a very definite process by which different issues could be handled. I think the Congregation works very well, and functions very smoothly and therefore it is not as important who it is that occupies any particular position inside the office. It is kind of like the old Jesuit school system, where it doesnt require any particular geniuses to make it work, it took people who were faithful to the mission, and did their jobs as prescribed, and so that in that way you can achieve a lot.
4. In the past year, particularly with the Synod of the Eucharist, and the imminent publication of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, a lot of attention and discussion has been given to the area of liturgy, ie the recent approval by the American bishops of the new English translation of the Roman Missal. Is this a fruition of the ideals you established, when you started Adoremus and what are we in fact likely to see happen in this very vexed area?
Well, I cant predict what specific, concrete changes will come about, through legislation or documents from the Holy Father but his views on liturgy are well known and I do not think this represents merely his own person opinions, they represent a deeper knowledge of the history of the liturgy, and its liturgical life.
I cannot believe that he will not take steps to move in the direction of a real renewal of the liturgy, and he said that publicly. Pope Benedict said we need to re-read the Vatican Council documents in the light of tradition, and that includes first and foremost Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Decree on the Liturgy.
I would certainly be surprised if nothing happened, what will happen, when it will happen, we will just have to wait and see although I believe this post-synodal exhortation will be a significant document.
5. For instance, are we likely to see a universal indult granted to the celebration of the Tridentine liturgy, and the disappearance of some liturgical concessions like communion in the hand etc (called for by 2 bishops at the Synod)?
I dont know whether that is in the works or not, that is not an area that has been in the forefront of Pope Benedicts writings. Certainly if you look at his writings on the liturgy, there is a great emphasis on the tradition of church music, the beautiful and holy Gregorian chant and polyphony. There is the question of the direction of prayer, and the lessening of the taboo against celebrating Mass in the direction of the East. He is very supportive of more adoration and more kneeling, liturgical actions.
So those things I think we can predict he will move towards implementing because he has written so much about it. As far as the universal indult goes, I dont know. He certainly said he thought it was a mistake to prohibit the pre-conciliar Mass. But now after having been prohibited for so many years, I am not sure what the Holy Father will do.
6. I believe last September in Castelgandolfo, a group of you met with the Holy Father to discuss pressing issues, and what was quoted from the meeting were Pope Benedicts concerns regarding Islam. Can you reiterate what the Holy Father said then, and are these meetings to continue?
This is a meeting of former doctoral students of the Holy Father, and the Pope wants it to continue. We will be meeting next in September and it the topic will be Evolution and Creation. Last year, it was the Islamic concept of God, and its consequences for secular society. What the Holy Father said during the meeting basically is the same thing he said elsewhere. So, I am not going to comment on it as something he said at the meeting but if you want to see what he thinks about Islam. It is public, and he has certainly emphasised this every time he has met with the Muslims ie the need for them to insure freedom and reciprocity for our welcoming of them in Western societies, and for our freedoms in their societies.
7. In 1996, after your trip to Australia, your visit became enshrouded in controversy because of the criticisms of the then provincial, Fr Bill Uren SJ, who charged that you did not have the right permission to engage in a public ministry here from him. In retrospect, was this an error on your part?
I have made many mistakes in my life, but that was one of them. If I want to go into another Jesuit province, I only need the permission of my own provincial, as I had them from the one in California.
He was at liberty of course to take this matter up with the Australian provincial, but that did not need my involvement.
The Liturgy was beautiful, albeit almost entirely in Tagalog. Still the Filipino community has its own choir, and they sang nearly the entire mass.
Our Lady of Piat is more than 400 years old, and is know for thousands of cures. Archbishop Talamayan performed a blessing for the sick following mass.
"Why I will be a lector but never a Eucharistic minister."
Not unless you become a priest can you be a Eucharistic minister. You could become an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion though.
Oh? Like it or not, the term I use is more common than the official title. Remember when it was LEM?
Better yet, remember when it didn't exist? Remember when only the priest could distribute communion? With God's blessing, may that day soon return for the Latin Church.
I once asked a meeting of conservative Catholics in Arlington, VA. "Why did they remove the altar rails?" No one had an answer. It was certainly quicker.
"Oh? Like it or not, the term I use is more common than the official title"
The issue is not whether I like the title or the function. The issue is that Redemptionis Sacramentum specifically tells us not to use this term.
"1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
[154.] As has already been recalled, "the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest".254 Hence the name "minister of the Eucharist" belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,255 to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ's faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.
[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ's faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,256 for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.257
[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not "special minister of Holy Communion" nor "extraordinary minister of the Eucharist" nor "special minister of the Eucharist", by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened."
"Remember when only the priest could distribute communion"
Yes, I do and when I attend the TLM this is still the case. Remarkable that one priest can serve 200 in about the same time as it takes a bevy of EMHC's to do the same thing.
It was not and still is not to be the "usual" way communion is served.
Again from Redemptionis Sacramentum
"[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.259 This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason."
The problem is that what you or I may consider "so great" and what the Pastor of any particular parish believes is "so great" may differ greatly.
Incidentally - can anyone tell me how to set off the quoted information in italics as I see some on this forum do or how to bold or underscore, etc?
I feel like I'm being ripped off a little if I get it from a lay person. I understand I'm really not, and in case of necessity I'm ok with it. But for inclusiveness sake? Fugghedaboutit.
I know how you feel. Once upon a time, the hands of a priest were thought to be something special. They are, in a way, , the hands of Christ himself, and to receive the host from those hands was, again, special.
I'm always reduced to mush at the part of the ordination mass when the hands of the candidate are anointed with oil and the bishop makes three circles with chrism oil on each palm.
Having "Extraordinary" Eucharistic Ministers in the Latin Church was a huge mistake because I feel it diminishes the mystery of the Eucharist in the minds of the faithful.
In the Byzantine Catholic churches only ordained men may handle the Eucharist or sacred vessels because their hands have been properly consecrated.
Restricting the laity from touching the Eucharist with their hands reinforces its mystery and profound holiness.
For me going into a Novus Ordo temple and seeing laypeople touching the Eucharist is almost scandalous because there would be hell to pay if I did that in my Byzantine Catholic parish.
"Why did they remove the altar rails?"
I find that sort of funny, considering most Lutheran Churches I have attended still have altar rails. The same is true of many Anglican parishes.
Even some Methodist churches.
"Why did they remove the altar rails?"Let's see.........
To make it easier for all the EMHC's to get on the altar?
To make it easier for the life teeners to gather round' the altar?
To make it easier for the priest to leave the altar and wander all over the church during the sign of peace?
Because while they were ripping out the confessionals, they thought they might as well rip out the altar rails too since no one had to kneel to receive communion?
All of the above.
The creators of the Novus Ordo sacrificed some of the most beautiful prayers of the traditional Roman rite in its creation.
Here are just a few that I found inspiring as a new convert to Catholicism that were excised:
I found Psalm 42 at the foot of the altar to be a profound way of setting up the liturgical action. (i.e. the Mass is a mystical sacrifice, not a la di da social get together.) I think it is little wonder that the Anglican High Churchmen restored this Psalm 42 to their Protestant liturgy. Meaning, they saw it as a way of undoing the Protestant antipathy to the Mass as a sacrifice.
The priest's prayer before the Gospel:
Cleanse my heart and my lips, almighty God, who didst cleanse the lips of Isaiah the prophet with a live coal: so of thy gracious mercy vouchsafe to cleanse me, that I may worthily proclaim thy holy Gospel. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. (I feel this prayer emphasizes the holiness of the Gospel message and the priest's humanity far better than the
The liturgical actions in the former rite that emphasized the Mass as an office of sacrifice to the Lord more than the current rite. The current rite, unlike the former, is capable of having a Lutheran interpretation to it.
Had the revisers of the Roman Mass wanted an authentically Catholic way of simplifying the liturgy, they could have looked to simpler forms of the Roman liturgy such as the Carthusian usage.
The spirit of the Novus Ordo is not in keeping with the spirit of the apostolic liturgies from my experience; that is, the vertical sense of the sacred. It is a product of the
spirit of the nihilistic and narcissistic 1960s and 1970s.
The rubrics of the traditional Roman Mass could have been modified to encourage greater participation per Vatican II, or other ways of bringing the liturgy closer to the faithful could have been accomplished. Other aspects, such as the restoration of concelebration could have been introduced to the 1962 Missal.
Perhaps a modest restoration, such as the reimplementation of the 1965 Missal for a transition back to Tradition could be an option. http://traditionalromanmass.blogspot.com/