The Vatican has issued a directive to a Polish diocese that emphasizes the freedom of priests to celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form whenever they choose.
The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei made the clarification in January in a series of responses to questions from a Polish diocese, which sought clarification regarding the use of the traditional Latin Mass. The answers, which came to public attention in mid-February, concerned Pope Benedict’s 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, issued “motu proprio” (on his own initiative).
However, the Vatican stresses that the clarification is addressed to a particular group and is “not a set of guidelines.” Officials are still working on a comprehensive set of guidelines on Summorum Pontificum, which are expected to be published soon.
Two points of the ruling are considered most significant: A Mass in the extraordinary form “may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the ordinary form,” and a parish priest “may schedule a public Mass in the extraordinary form on his own accord.”
Another response also stipulates that the calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Roman Missal “may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Roman Missal in Masses in the extraordinary form.”
Michael Dunnigan, chairman of Una Voce America, said the commission’s response “forcefully reaffirms both the plain meaning of Summorum Pontificum and also the rights of the laity and clergy who are devoted to the traditional Mass.”
The first response begins: “If there is no other possibility, because for instance in all churches of a diocese the liturgies of the Easter triduum are already being celebrated in the ordinary form, the liturgies of the Easter triduum may, in the same church in which they are already celebrated in the ordinary form, be additionally celebrated in the extraordinary form, if the local ordinary allows.”
The second response clarifies that a Mass in the usus antiquior (extraordinary form) “may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the ordinary form.” The question contextualizes that in many churches Sunday Masses are more or less scheduled continually, leaving free only very inconvenient mid-afternoon slots, but this is merely context, the question posed being general. The answer leaves the matter “to the prudent judgment of the parish priest,” since a stable group enjoys “the right to assist at Mass in the extraordinary form.”
In the third response, it states that a parish priest “may schedule a public Mass in the extraordinary form on his own accord (i.e. without the request of a group of faithful) for the benefit of the faithful including those unfamiliar with the usus antiquior.” The response of the commission here is identical to No. 2.
Fourth, it adds that “the calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Missale Romanum may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Missale Romanum in Masses in the extraordinary form.”
Lastly, it states: “While the liturgical readings (epistle and Gospel) themselves have to be read by the priest (or deacon/subdeacon) as foreseen by the rubrics, a translation to the vernacular may afterwards be read also by a layperson.”
Regarding the second and third responses, Dunnigan said that, strictly speaking, they should “not have been necessary at all, because the language of Summorum Pontificum already was clear.” However, he added that in the United States the faithful have experienced the same type of obstruction to celebration of the traditional Latin Mass as has happened in Poland.
“Some leaders in the Church seem determined to relegate the traditional Mass to second-class status by restricting the pastor’s prerogative to revise his parish’s Mass schedule,” said Dunnigan. “I am grateful to the commission for making clear that these obstacles find no support in Summorum Pontificum and amount to unjust restrictions on the rights of the faithful.”
The last two responses may not be as rigid as they seem. A committee of Ecclesia Dei is currently studying what parts of the new Missal can be used in the extraordinary form and, although not yet certain, it is probable that saints canonized since 1962 will be incorporated into the 1962 Missal. (There are already communities where the 1970 sanctoral cycle is followed with the commission’s tacit approval, such as the Abbey of Fontgombault in France and all its daughterhouses, including Clear Creek in Hulbert, Okla.)
This means, for instance, that the two forms of the Mass could celebrate saints on the same days, something which would be in line with Pope Benedict XVI’s accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum.
The Holy Father wrote: “The two forms of the usage of the Roman rite can be mutually enriching: New saints and some of the new prefaces can and should be inserted in the old missal.”
The directive on liturgical readings may also be looser than it might appear in these responses, as there are already communities using the traditional Latin Mass with the new lectionary in the vernacular.
The Vatican has long been concerned about resistance to allowing stable groups of faithful and priests to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass.
Although it believes these obstructions are beginning to die down, Ecclesia Dei still plans on issuing a “clarification document” on Summorum Pontificum.
Rumors have long circulated that the Vatican has been drawing up such a document and that it was delayed because some officials found problems with the drafts. These recent responses, apparently issued with minimal consultation, are therefore not meant to replace the forthcoming document.
Edward Pentin writes from Rome.
Comments
Post a Comment
This document is unfortunate.
How many of the faithful know even basic latin today. Was not the decision to have the Holy sacrifice of The mass in the vernacular to allow the people to hear and understand each and every word of the Mass, and fully participe in the Great Sacrifice. I doubt if this decision will encourage more Catholics to go to mass
You are missing the point, its for people like me who like the Extraordinary Form and want it said more often and in more places and the name of the Mass means that its not said every time.
I’m all in favor of a 1962 Missal as well as the traditional Divine Office revised to include Saints canonized after 1962. The Latin Mass community in my diocese is named after such a Saint-Mother Theodore Guerin. And two priests-who were given permission by the Vatican to continue to say what’s now called the “Extraordinary Form”-were canonized since 1962. One was Padre Pio and the other was Josemaria Escriva-the founder of Opus Dei.
“The mass in the vernacular to allow the people to hear and understand each and every word of the Mass, and fully participe in the Great Sacrifice.”
-Posted by kelly Leclair on Tuesday, Mar 9, 2010 8:51 PM (EST)
On the contrary, the fact that the Novus Ordo in typically said in the vernacular doesn’t automatically mean that the faithful attending will automatically understand what is being said. I’d think it’s safe to say that the majority of the laity that attend the Extraordinary form have a much better understanding of the the Mass actually is and what occurs during the course of the Mass.
Understanding every word being said doesn’t mean you understand the meaning of that those words convey.
This is GOOD NEWS—- The churches will now be full to capacity. When I attend a Tridentine Mass—- the Missal has he Latin and the English—- so it is easy to follow the Mass. People are more respectfully dressed. The New Mass is truly not Catholic in many respects. The Last Gospel of John is left out of the New Mass and the Prayer to Holy Michael the Archangel is no longer said—- but I continue to silently keep these two critical parts in my prayers when I attend the Mass.
I would also have preferred that an official translation in the vernacular of the extraordinary form be made and this too can be celebrated by the priest. In this way, it allows more people to appreciate the extraordinary form without alienating them too much because of the latin. Basically in those emerging catholic communities in Asia, the extraordinary form will never be used because most of the priests have never been trained to be proficient in latin. Moreover, the extraordinary form is not being taught in most of their seminaries and religious houses of formation. So a strictly latin form would be pointless for the Church there.
It may be difficult for some to make the transition from the vernacular to Latin. Without a doubt, attending a traditional Latin Mass, requires more attention on the part of the laity. But this is not a negative. Unfortunately, many Catholics poorly understand their faith, and are entirely oblivious to the concept that the Mass is an actual sacrifice. To follow the Latin Mass, to become familiar with the ancient form, requires carefully following the translation of the Missal. That exercise, in and of itself, is a huge positive. Beyond that, many are attracted to the heightened sense of reverence on display. And, this too, is a positive.
WHY THE FUSS, LATIN HAS BEEN USED FOR 2000.+ YEARS IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, GOOD ENOUGH FOR OUR FOREFATHERS,WHY NOT FOR US.IF A PERSON HAS PROBLEM WITH LATIN, THERE ARE MANY BOOKS THAT TRANSLATE-SIDE BY SIDE,SUCH AS “BLESSID BE GOD” AND OTHERS OF THAT TYPE. TRIDITION HAS KEPT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GOING THROUGH MANY CRISES AND LATIN IS THE FOUNDING BASIS FOR OUR PRESENT CIVILATION,THINK ABOUT THAT AND PRAY TO GOD FOR UNDERSTANDING.
Kelly,
There is nothing “unfortunate” about this document. No one is being forced to assist at so much as a single Mass in the Extraordinary form. The motu proprio simply removes unjust restrictions placed on the Faithfull’s access to the old Mass after Vatican II. If you find that the Ordinary form fulfills your spiritual needs better, then I am pleased for you that your access to it is not restricted unjustly. You ought not to be threatened by the fact that the Extraordinary form “speaks to” me more powerfully. I for one rejoice that both forms are more readily available and in fact generally worship in the Extraordinary form on Sundays and the Ordinary form for daily Mass. Don’t look on the enhanced access to the old Mass as a negative but rejoice that Holy Mother Church has yet another legitimate vehicle to meet the needs of her faithful.
Deo Gratias!
I am eager to reclaim a portion of my Catholic heritage. Latin is NOT that difficult a language to learn. There are communities where ‘The Faithful’ DO the responses. This is NOT some sort of Kabuki theater, this is the center-point of our faith.
I was born before the “English” Mass, and made my First Communion the first year we had the Mass in English. So attending and participating in the sacrifice in English is something I have been doing most of my life.
A lot of Catholics left the Church when it was changed so drastically. Check the statistics.
I am glad to hear that this freedom to all priests will be allowed—long overdue!
When can we expect the revised and more accurate translations of the Latin Mass into English? The Protestant imitation didn’t work.
Lastly, I wish that Communion in the hand is curtailed for the simple reason of the abuses that have resulted.
That’s why it’s the “extraordinary” form. As a convert to Catholicism, I am very grateful that the rich heritage of the Church’s past is being preserved and made available to those of us have never had an opportunity to experience it.
FYI - Just to keep everything in perspective:
The Church issued the dogmatic definitions of the first seven General Councils in Greek, and even in Rome, Greek remained at first the language of the liturgy and the language in which the first Popes wrote. During the Late Republic and Early Empire periods, educated Roman citizens were generally fluent in Greek, although state business was conducted in Latin. Until the time of Pope Victor 1 (189 to 199), Rome celebrated the Mass in Greek. Pope Victor changed the language to Latin, which was used in his native North Africa. According to Jerome, he was the first Christian author to write about theology in Latin. Latin masses, however, did not become universal until the latter half of the fourth century.
—- All of this being said, if we base our argument only on heritage and tradition, then one could make the argument that we should have everything in Greek.
Also, everyone seems focused on Vatican 2 as the primary point of using the vernacular. However, as early as 1913, the Catholic Encyclopedia commented that Latin was starting to be replaced by vernacular languages.
An uninformed question:
I find the Extraordinary Form of the mass beautiful but I have no idea what is being said which leads to constant distraction; why can’t the extraordinary form simply use the vernacular instead of Latin? That would seem the best of both worlds to my mind: beautiful liturgy with words the congregation can understand & grasp.
Clearly though I’m no liturgist/theologian and if an English translation of the Novus Ordo causes a stir imagine what an English translation of the Extraordinary Form would do.
Great news…I know many people who left the Catholic church because they changed the Mass so drastically to the washed out, proptestant version…even the Our Father, I say Amen right after the ‘deliver us from evil’...the shaking of hands and looking around and waving at people, oh, such a sacralige…my husband is a convert thru Medj. and he is loving all the aspects of the Trad. Mass….he gets it….so will you…
In Sweden, a nordic country with a small but growing catholic community, a notable majority of those who attend the traditional latin mass are young people who were not even born at the time of Vatican II.
I simply refuse to attend Mass in English, it means nothing to me, it never did and never will—I grew up with the Latin Mass in Ireland.—It is really wonderful news for us San Francisco residents to learn about the: “....sought clarification regarding the use of the traditional Latin Mass. The answers, which came to public attention in mid-February, concerned Pope Benedict’s 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, issued “motu proprio” (on his own initiative).
However, the Vatican stresses that the clarification is addressed to a particular group and is “not a set of guidelines.” Officials are still working on a comprehensive set of guidelines on Summorum Pontificum, which are expected to be published soon”.—Archbishop George H. Niederauer will soon be obliged to cave in, he’ll simply have to comply with our absolute right to attend the Traditional Rite, or if you will, the 1962 Roman Missal of Masses in the extraordinary form. I look forward to my being able to attend the extraordinary form in a number of parishes throughout the city.
Vat II did not command the vernacular. It simply decreed the vernacular COULD be given a bigger space so to speak. It did however command that Latin is to be retained in the Mass and that Priests and Bishops should take particular care that the faithful should know the parts of the Ordinary (unchanging parts from week to week) in Latin. If you were told otherwise check the documents, you were lied to. A few prayers and responses in Latin these days is no particular feat with internet and all. Every excuse can be found not to use it, but let’s be clear it is not what Vat II asked for and is not what Holy Church wants. Part of being Catholic is tradition, and at elast one Mass in Latin should be said on Sundays, whether it be the 1962 Missal or that of 1970.
To kelly Leclair concern…And how much has the Novus Ordo mass brought more people to Mass??
My parish keeps dwindling while the Latin Mass parish has more & more packed Masses.
Plus, the point isn’t Latin. With ‘traditionalists’, it’s the emphasis.
I grew up on ‘trendy Novus Ordo.’ Solemn, sacred atmosphere surrounded by prayerful and obedient Catholics is a nice change of pace.
1. When the Mass was always in Latin, people still understood much of it, having learned parts by rote or by looking at their missals.
2. The first translations into English were beautiful. The, “He took into His goodly hands, a most excellent chalice” became, “He took the cup”. People aren’t stupid. The older English could be understood, and it lent solemnity to ritual, which is after all, “sacred theater” of a sort.
3. When every day English became the norm, a “familiarity” often set in regarding the Mass which had less to do with “understanding”, and more to do with “ordinary”. The ritual of the Mass no longer connected many of us to our ancestors, who worshiped as we did, or to centuries of church history, or to the Church Triumphant and those saints who prayed in Latin, the great global Catholic “unifier”. The Mass became a celebration of and in the here and now, two dimensional instead of four.
I have seen the new Mass performed with dignity, but usually at monasteries. Our parish Masses - which all understood in common English - were often rushed, poorly executed, trendy, way too casual, and hardly inspirational at times. having the Tridentine Rite back again is wonderful. It, like the Catholic Eastern Rite, are no “threat” to the new Mass, can exist side by side with it, and gives the people yet another (timeless) way of glorifying God and communing with Him.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.