Posted on 06/28/2007 4:36:20 AM PDT by monkapotamus
OFFICIAL
COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE
A meeting took place yesterday afternoon at the Vatican, presided by the Cardinal Secretary of State, in which the content and the spirit of the expected "Motu proprio" of the Holy Father on the use of the Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962 were explained to the representatives of several episcopal conferences. The Holy Father came to salute those who were present and maintained a deep discussion with them for about one hour. The publication of the document - which will be accompanied by a thorough personal letter of the Holy Father to the singular Bishops - is predicted for within a few days, when the document itself will be sent to all Bishops with the indication of its successive coming into effect.
So do I!!
I just mean, as I’m sure you probably know, it’s not a Pope says jump, Cardinal says how high sort of relationship. Pope is largely a Princeps or First Among Equals in relation to the CofC, but his biggest influence is appointing like minded individuals to the college as they attrit, so over time the Pope’s authority gets stronger, not weaker.
ROFL! Ain’t it the truth!
Back when Ecclesia Dei came out, a Bishop (Ordinary of a rather LARGE diocese) told me personally, that they (I don’t know if it was the whole NCCB or just selected members) had held a meeting at Seton Hall for the express purpose of devising a strategy AROUND Ecclesia Dei . . . and he was very very blatant and unapologetic about this.
Let’s see what happens this time around.
You're kidding!!! ARGH!!
I will give you a good example: Recently there have been photos/videos of various liturgical abuses that have made their way onto various blogs and websites, and thus have been very easily passed along to the Holy See. This is highly unnerving to some bishops, because if someone is in doubt about whether or not something is correct, they can easily post the picture and ask about it.
That's not to say that something like you're saying might not happen again, but I think it will be increasingly more difficult.
That's an excellent point. I do think the bishops are very afraid of this, and in fact they have even said that, as far as they're concerned, their whole fear of the MP comes down to seeing it as something that will "weaken their authority." Since they never use their authority to enforce what Rome says - theoretically what they should be doing - but instead to go their own way, build up their own little kingdoms which they then project onto a national level at the bishops conferences, and usually to defy Rome, such a "weakening" could only be good. And it does seem as if Rome is taking the part of the meek (laypeople and lower clergy) against the powerful (bishops) finally.
I have always thought that if it had been up to the laypeople in 1970, none of this would ever have happened; there would have been no Novus Ordo, no clown masses, no liturgists, no EEMs...In fact, if you had asked most priests at that time, they were as stunned as everybody else by the scope of the changes. But Paul VI dreamed this up and then handed it over to the bishops, and they've run wild with it ever since.
Supposedly there is still going to be some sort of mechanism where the bishops are permitted to refuse Tridentine Masses with the permission of the Holy See. I'm curious to see what (if any) this mechanism is. If it is true, then there would still be a way for the bishops to restrict the Extraordinary Liturgy, but in doing so, they would be "outing" themselves to the Holy See unless they truly had a valid reason for such a restriction.
I certainly hope that this new missal will take into account all the new saints and the revised calendar.
Questions, questions!
Inquiring minds want to know.
What a shame it would be to lose saints like St. Macimillian Kolbe, etc.
I got that impression, too, but I guess we won’t know until we see the final text. However, this is causing such interest among many people - clergy, laity and even the New York Times! - that I think the bishops would definitely be seeing themselves as issuing a challenge to Rome if they should refuse to permit Tridentine Rite masses. I’m not sure they’d dare to go that far.
Most of them seem to be sort of passive-aggressive types. They don’t have the guts to openly confront Rome, but instead they either drag their heels until Rome gives up, or they intially assent to whatever it is they’re supposed to do and then burn the midnight oil until they find the escape clause. And then they claim to be fulfilling the orders of Rome, but of course, reflecting the “special pastoral situations” in which they inevitably find themselves. So I’m sure they’re looking for an out right now, but I think the Pope was pretty careful and if there’s an out, it may cost them too much to use it. I hope, at least.
There are no coincidences: 7/7/7
Let’s see what happens this time around.
Does it not break your heart? Christ Crucified all over again.
They fear nothing.
The Novus Ordo and its calendar won’t be affected at all.
I don’t know what the Tridentine Rite is going to do, although I vaguely recall reading that the new calendar is supposed to be used for the TLM, too. This would mean some adaptations; there are readings, of course, for martyrs, readings for virgins not martyrs, readings for - well, you get the idea! So I imagine that they would just read one of the appropriate all-purpose sets of readings for a feast of a saint who had not yet been canonized at the time that the 1962 missal ceased being used.
But I couldn’t swear to it! They might have worked out something else; it will be interesting to see what the final document says.
I’m conflicted about the calendar.
I definitely want feasts for St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, Blessed Kateri, and St. John Neumann in the 62 Missal. OTOH, I wouldn’t want to lose Septuagesima, Ember days, etc.
I also read something about the new calendar being used for the old Mass. But I’m hoping somehow that some important elements of the 62 calendar are retained. :\
Thank you very much for posting Quo Primum Tempore but may I point out that the version posted above is the false "Bugnini-ized" translation of Quo Primum.
Note, at the beginning of the 4th paragraph above: "This new rite alone is to be used..." is a completely false translation, with the words "novus ritui" or "novus ordo" nowhere to be found in the Latin original of the document.
The reason for this lie is to pretend that Pope Saint Pius V and the Council of Trent concocted a new rite of Mass in 1570 - as opposed to merely canonizing the pre-existing and ancient Roman rite to prevent the introduction of heresy during the Protestant Revoultion (therefore other rites or rubrics over 200 years old were safe and permitted) - or the introduction of heresy from today's Mondernist Revolution as well. Also if Pope Saint Pius V *could* concoct a new rite of Mass - which he couldn't - then that would justify Montini/Paul6 in doing it in 1969.
In fact the the corrupt translation breaks ONE SENTENCE up into three seperate paragraphs - and in now way conveys the intent of the original Latin or the proper English translation.
The side by side comparison of the original Latin text with a proper English translation of it may be found at:
I'll list the Latin orignal of the LONG sentence in question below, followed by the proper English translation:
" Ut autem a sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, ceterarum ecclesiarum matre et magistra, tradita ubique amplectantur omnes et observent, ne in posterum perpetuis futuris temporibus in omnibus Christiani orbis Provinciarum Patriarchalibus, Cathedralibus, Collegiatis et Parochialibus, saecularibus, et quorumvis Ordinum, monasteriorum, tam virorum, quam mulierum, etiam militiarum regularibus, ac sine cura Ecclesiis vel Capellis, in quibus Missa conventualis alta voce cum Choro, aut demissa, celebrari juxta Romanae Ecclesiae ritum consuevit vel debet alias quam juxta Missalis a nobis editi formulam decantetur, aut recitetur, etiamsi eaedem Ecclesiae quovis modo exenptae, Apostolicae Sedis indulto, consuetudine, privilegio, etiam juramento, confirmatione Apostolica, vel aliis quibusvis facultatibus munitae sint; nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica adprobata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus; sic si Missale hoc, quod nunc in lucem edi curavimus, iisdem magis placeret, de Episcopi, vel Praelati. Capitulique universi consensu, ut quibusvis non obstantibus, juxta illud Missas celebrare possint, permittimus; ex aliis vero omnibus Ecclesiis praefatis eorumdem Missalium usum tollendo, illaque penitus et omnio rejiciendo, ac huic Missali nostro nuper editio, nihil unquam addendum, detrahendum, aut immutandum esse decernendo, sub indignationis nostrae poena, hac nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione statuimus et ordinamus."
"Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply moreover even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever; saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over two hundred years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See’s institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than two hundred years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to this rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered there in."
I think the best thing that could happen regarding the Calendar would be for Rome to draw up a single Calendar for both rites. The single Calendar would essentially be the same structure as the 1962, in terms of the Proper of the Time (e.g. Septuagesima, Ember Days), while incorporating newer saints. That is exactly what was always happening prior to 1962, anyway. The single Calendar would obviously also have to use the 1962 ranking/classification system (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th. class), which is actually simpler than the 1969 ranking system. Yes, the Novus Ordo can retain its readings cycle, but the names of the Sundays would henceforth be the same as the Tridentine, and the order of precedence would be dictated by the 1962 rankings, etc.
Pardon? This doesn't sound like a Catholic sentiment to me. It reeks of schism, which does nothing to heal the encroachment of Modernism into the Church, and chases those who wish to remain within the Catholic Church away from Tradition.
Yes, I thnk that would be regrettable. They were a big loss; in fact, I think the impact of the entire cycle was lessened. I feel that in general, in the NO calendar, sacred time was replaced by secular scheduling.
I wonder if there is a possibility that the calendar, including not only the actual days, but also the readings, etc. will be revised in the future, after the TLM has been available for awhile.
It figures it was at Seton Hall. Teddy McCarrick strikes again! That also goes far toward explaining why he allowed a TLM once a month on Saturday in a church in a not so nice part of Newark. Real "wide and generous" there, Teddy. </sarcasm>
Interestingly, someone I know who is very involved with things liturgical told me that there are many people, not even just TLM people, who don’t like the way the current cycle of readings and psalms are set up (this is particularly true in the Office). There are so many of them they have a shotgun effect and often don’t seem to be related to much of anything in the liturgy.
Personally, I think it would be great to just go back to the Old Calendar altoghther and start afresh. As you say, new saints were always being incorporated, and as for the readings (not to mention the Office), maybe that needs to be reexamined, too.
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.