Diaconal ordinations in Victoria, B.C.

Diaconal ordination mass for Michael Birch, Don Malins, and Peter Switzer

Three more former Anglican Catholic Church Clergy on their way to ordination as Catholic priests were ordained to the diaconate yesterday in Victoria, B.C. by Bishop Richard Gagnon.

Deborah Mullan has lots of pictures here.

Congratulations Deacons Michael Birch, Don Malins, and Peter Switzer!

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Diaconal ordinations in Victoria, B.C.

  1. Rev22:17 says:

    Deborah,

    You wrote: Three more former Anglican Catholic Church Clergy on their way to ordination as Catholic priests were ordained to the diaconate yesterday in Victoria, B.C. by Bishop Richard Gagnon.

    More progress! Yea!

    The web site of the Fellowship of Blessed John Henry Newman indicates that the three new deacons will receive ordination as presbyters on 14 June (Friday).

    But a staff of four (4) presbyters is a LOT for such a small congregation. Does anybody know if there are plans for some of them to relocate to serve another congregation?

    Norm.

    • EPMS says:

      Peter Switzer hopes to assist the priest in Port Alberni where he currently lives. Although all the men are in their mid seventies, no doubt the bishop has a plan for their efficient deploymenrt.

    • P.K.T.P. says:

      They will be ordained priests, not ‘presbyters’. Only Novus Disordo people become presbyters (and yes, I know the Greek: I refer to English usage). Deacon Switzer, I understand, will minister up-Island and at Port Alberni; the others, in Victoria. I expect that they will celebrate the New Roman Mass to assist the Diocese of Victoria in addition to offering the Anglican Use Mass.

      P.K.T.P;.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Peter,

        You wrote: They will be ordained priests, not ‘presbyters’. Only Novus Disordo people become presbyters (and yes, I know the Greek: I refer to English usage).

        The three orders of the sacrament of holy orders are correctly: (1) bishop, (2) presbyter, and (3) deacon. The term “priest” refers to both the order of bishop and the order of presbyter, and thus is ambiguous.

        Norm.

  2. Pingback: Diaconal ordinations in Victoria, B.C. | Catholic Canada

  3. Ou them statues are hard to take biblically in the picture! Even historically the EO don’t go there! The Icon seems much more biblical, words about God through the “image”, and of course Christ is the true “image” of God! (Col. 1: 15 / Heb. 1: 3) Sorry, not making a fight, just a biblical-theological point!

    • Ioannes says:

      We Catholics are iconodules. Your iconoclasm aside, no one is barring you from joining the Orthodox. Try telling them your biblical-theological point of view as well. Here’s a forum where they’ll appreciate your opinions. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?board=33.0

      • Don Henri says:

        Why can’t you just enjoy the content of the post, and stop lecturing everybody from a rabidly protestant and nontraditional point of view???

        + pax et bonum

      • Don Henri says:

        That was aimed at Fr. Robert 🙂

      • I know have been somewhat close to Orthodoxy perhaps longer than so-called Ioannes has drawn breath! And I have gone toe to toe with not a few EO over my years for sure, on bible & theology, etc.! But, they are certainly the keepers of the early Ecumenical Councils, and their Christology is also helpful!

        And the “content” of the post pictures “rabid” error as to the use of statues and visible images in the worship of God, which the Holy Scripture is most certainly against: “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image – any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Deut. 5: 7-10) But yes, I am a Protestant Anglican, but certainly of no “nontraditional” point of view, the challenge is actually to YOU mate! 😉

      • No kidding Don! But as usual, you are always speaking from your place of Traditional but narrow-minded Catholicism! You forget I grew-up with that kind of mentality in Ireland in the 50’s and early 60’s. But its not a grown-up faith in a true or better R. Catholicism, however!

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Fr. Robert,

        You wrote: And the “content” of the post pictures “rabid” error as to the use of statues and visible images in the worship of God, which the Holy Scripture is most certainly against: “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image – any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Deut. 5: 7-10)

        First, it’s not clear to me that “carved image” is an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text. Rather, most translations have used the term “graven image” — meaning something that is worshipped. An icon or other picture can be just as much of an idol as a statue, if one falls into the trap of worshipping the picture rather than simply using the picture to focus one’s attention on the mysteries of faith.

        But having said that, you are quoting one of the few passages of scripture with respect to which the magisterium of the Catholic Church has spoken definitively as to its meaning. In this regard, the magisterium has stated definitively that the issue to which that text speaks is worshipping a statue or picture as an idol, and that a statue or picture is acceptable so long as it does not become an object of worship. Thus, Catholic ecclesiastical law neither requires nor forbids statues, icons, or other images in a Catholic worship space.

        Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        Catechism of the Catholic Church:

        2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

        ———————–

        In the case of Protestant trolls whom we cannot burn either in actuality or effigy, it is much better to have them banned and blocked from sites in which they spread their error and endanger the faith. Otherwise, dialogue with them is like dialogue with the Devil- you don’t go anywhere but where he wants you to go.

    • Ioannes says:

      Norm,

      To many Protestants, the Brazen Serpent and the angels which guard the Ark of the Covenant, both of which were graven images, were “added on” by “Evil Papists” and are “Apocryphal”.

      And that we commit idolatry by believing in and adoring the consecrated bread, which is the true and real Body of Christ.

      Because Jesus Christ was a liar who really didn’t mean it when He said you have to eat His Body and drink His Blood to be saved, and when people deserted Him for teaching this, He was just really misunderstood and was kidding around. And the Last Supper was just a nice dinner with friends, and Jesus was just “being poetic” and “hyperbolic” Which is why Protestantism is on that level- a giant joke.

      In fact, why can’t Protestants be honest and go all the way and say “Jesus is not the Son of God, He was just a “moral teacher” who didn’t really die on the cross, and the Resurrection never happened, it was all a fabrication by His followers.” After all, with what a lot of Protestants claim to believe, they could hardly be called “Christians” any more than baptized men and women who commit murder and rape and all other sorts of wickedness can be called “Christians”!

      • This is the kind of speech one ultimately gets with old school Traditional Roman Catholics, when they cannot really dialogue and defend their faith! Straw men arguments at best, even when they try, stale and hackneyed really!

        And the real “troll” here is “Ioannes”, who is he? He does not even have a blog of his own!

    • P.K.T.P. says:

      I am the M.C. there for the Traditional Latin Mass, which is offered at this Church. Actually, we are hoping to add four more statues to the sanctuary, all to be put into the niches on the reredos. After all, a niche is a frame and you wouldn’t hang a picture frame on a wall and not put a picture in it. I find that there are not enough statues in our church and feel a bit uncomfortable about it.

      We do have a statue in a back corner of St. Patrick. Someone stole his crozier and the joke among the Latin Mass people is that the Anglican Use folk must have removed it because, well, you know, St. Patrick is the Patron of Ireland.

      P.K.T.P.

    • P.K.T.P. says:

      On irishanglican’s complaints about engaging in argument on iconography,, I would say that a blog is not a good forum at all for engaging in theological exchange, at least not one that is open to most visitors. Some of us here know the arguments on both sides (others are not experts but know much of it) and have no interest in seeing if we can express them better than have others in the past, not that there is anything wrong with doing so. Does irishanglican really expect that visitors here will ‘drop everything’ to spend the needed time to defend their positions every time he feels like challenging them? Blogs are places for assertions, not detailed arguments. There is a time and a place for everything, Ecclesiastes.

      P.K.T.P.

  4. Don Henri says:

    Bishop Gagnon seems very supportive of the whole ordinariate project in his diocese. And indeed, it’s a win-win situation, since these 4 priests will certainly serve the diocese as well.
    + pax et bonum

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Don,

      You wrote: … since these 4 priests will certainly serve the diocese as well.

      Only IF they remain in Victoria — and that is a very big “IF.” The Ordinary probably will “ask” a couple of them to relocate to serve other ordinariate communities sooner or later, as the Fellowship of Blessed John Henry Newman in Victoria most assuredly does not need a pastor and three parochial vicars.

      Norm.

      • EPMS says:

        Norm, these are men in their 70s with ties to the community, which attracts the retired because of its mild climate. There is no possibility that they would be prepared to relocate to Edmonton, Oshawa, or Toronto. I am sure that there are local Victoria parishes that could use extra manpower.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        They will definitely all stay on the Island, and three of them in Victoria. While it’s true that some of the former A.C.C.C. priests will also offer the New Roman Mass, some will also perhaps celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. One never knows. In England, the Diocese of Hallam, centred at Sheffield, is the only English Diocese not having an every-Sunday Traditional Latin Mass. Now we hear that an Ordinariate priest there will begin offering Traditional Latin Masses. It will all work out in the end.

        P.K.T.P;.

  5. EPMS says:

    PS The former ACC priest ordained with Fr Kenyon in Calgary now serves full-time in a non-Ordinariate parish. I think these men will likewise be seen as part of the local diocese. What is the situation in Ottawa?

  6. EPMS says:

    Mr. Perkins: I seem to recall that Msgr Steenson specifically requested that Ordinariate priests not offer the TLM for their communities, although they could do so for a “stable” diocesan community that normally used the Extraordinary Form.

    • Ioannes says:

      I dislike that decision because of how it seemed to treat the Traditional Latin Mass as a strange and foreign ritual rather than the mother of all Latin Rite Masses, but I can respect the decision because of how other groups of Catholics established their own rules and exclusive use of their own rites, like the Dominicans, Ambrosians, Carmelites, etc. It’s easy to get over the exclusion of the TLM from the Ordinariates once seen from that perspective.

      Methinks the good Monsignor wants to get in good with the AmChurch crowd in the USCCB and for good reasons. While the “Spirit of Vatican 2” generation will likely be dead in the next two decades, it’s important for the Ordinariate to develop solid roots in the Church.

      • Indeed most from the “generation” of Vatican II will perhaps be dead in two decades, but not their writings!… Von Balthasar, De Lubac, Ratzinger, etc. Open hearts & minds are made alone by the Spirit of God!

        *Btw, in two decades, I am not sure Christ will not have Come Again? But I will be before the throne already myself that’s for sure! Maybe even you “Ioannes”? Don’t count your chicks before they hatch!

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: I seem to recall that Msgr Steenson specifically requested that Ordinariate priests not offer the TLM for their communities, although they could do so for a “stable” diocesan community that normally used the Extraordinary Form.

      In this context, “requested” is not accurate. “Directed” would be closer to the truth. But his directive clearly is fitting since liturgy in the vernacular, or some variant thereof, clearly is a central element of Anglican patrimony.

      I’m also not sure of there being any requirement that a diocesan community be “stable” in any meaningful sense of that term for clergy of the ordinariate to celebrate the Tridentine form of the mass for it. Rather, the central point is simply that such celebrations are under the jurisdiction of the local diocese rather than the ordinariate, and thus under the supervision of the bishop rather than the ordinary.

      That said, there is one additional caviat that’s rather obvious. A presbyter of an ordinariate must be sufficiently well versed in Latin to understand and follow the rubrics in the Tridentine form of the mass in order to celebrate it correctly. I doubt that training in ecclesiastical Latin is part of the program of formation for former Anglican clergy, and most of the ordinariate clergy probably still have their hands full with the post-ordination phase of the training in addition to their ministerial responsibilities and, in many cases, their “day jobs” that provide their families’ sustenance. Thus, it’s unlikely that the presbyters of the ordinariate will be taking on the celebration of mass according to the Tridentine form any time soon, perhaps excepting a few who are already fluent in Latin.

      Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        Your arguments, as usual, Norm, are farcical. But then we all knew that from the beginning. The Anglican Patrimony is something positive; it is a handing down of certain usages and customs, such as the glorious King James Bible (as opposed to the Catholic Version of the R.S.V. in non-sacral English, which is not part of that patrimony). However, it does not exclude anything incompatible with the patrimony, which is why Ordinariate priests are free even to offer the Novus Disordo Mass. In the Catholic Church, many priests of one Rite and from a given individual ritual church have bi-ritual faculties, and this is in no way a repudiation of their respective patrimonies–and keep in mind that I refer here to different ritual Churches and not liturgical Uses within a ritual Church. Following your reasoning, one could argue that the non-sacral English used in the N.O. is not part of the Anglican patrimony; therefore, Anglican Use priests should not be offering the N.O.M. That is ridiculous, and you shall never succeed in justifying Msgr. Steenson’s illegal directive.

        Such celebrations of Latin Masses are NOT primarily under the jurisdiction of the local bishops. They pertain to a right of Latin Church Priests stemming from immemorial custom, as recognised in the Preamble of “Summorum Pontificum”. When a Priest exercises his right, it is true that he does so under the general liturgical jurisdiction of his local or proper ordinary but the right to offer the 1962 Mass in Latin is intrinsic to the celebrant, not to his Bishop qua ordinary. Hence an Ordinariate priest can, in law, offer the 1962 Latin Mass under the jurisdiction of his own proper Ordinary at an Ordinariate church, or he can do so at the invitation of a Parish Priest of the Latin Church. The local Bishop only has a general duty to see to it that the Mass is offered in a fitting way and that the celebrant has the requisite knowledge to celebrate it (cf. Canon 392.2 and 838.4: in the latter case, note the previous sections of the Canon, as they apply here!).

        The degree of Latin literacy needed to offer a Mass in Latin is actually minimal, owing to a directive of Universæ Ecclesiæ and in reference to Canon 928. You see, whether you happen to like it or not, Latin is the lingua sacra of the Latin Church, to which Anglican Use priests belong. In principle, a local Bishop has no more prerogative to ban Latin than has an Abyssinian Bishop the right to ban Ge’ez and insist on modern Ethiopian or Amharic (whichever). A Priest need only know what the prayers being said mean in their essentials, and this can be secured by memorisation. Also, once a Priest has said even one such Mass, he is presumed to know enough Latin to continue doing so, unless challenged on this. Universæ Ecclesiæ affirms broad rights on this. I apologise for not having the sections in front on me this evening.

        Presbyter is only a Greek word meaning ‘Priest’. Your assertion about a distinction in meaning is fatuous. Every Bishop is both Priest and Deacon (de facto); every Priest is also Deacon (de facto: it could be sacramentally valid to receive a higher order without having received a lower one). The former term was simply introduced after the Council as part of the new lexis of the revolutionaries who took over the Church. They needed a new vocabulary because they wanted to build a new Church. I prefer the one founded by Jesus Christ.

        P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Peter,

        You seem to misunderstand Msgr. Steenson’s directive. It does not forbid clergy of the ordinariate from celebrating the liturgy according to the Tridentine Use. Rather, it says only that the Tridentine use is not appropriate for celebration of mass within ordinariate communities, whose members clearly do not have a “particular attachment thereto” and thus do not fall within the group for whom Summorum pontificam was intended.

        You wrote: Such celebrations of Latin Masses are NOT primarily under the jurisdiction of the local bishops.

        There’s a fundamental conceptual error here. Rather, every celebration of the liturgy and any sacrament is always under the jurisdiction, direction, and regulation of the competent diocesan bishop or other ordinary within whose jurisdiction it occurs.

        You wrote: The local Bishop only has a general duty to see to it that the Mass is offered in a fitting way and that the celebrant has the requisite knowledge to celebrate it (cf. Canon 392.2 and 838.4: in the latter case, note the previous sections of the Canon, as they apply here!).

        Yes, and this is my point exactly — and note that any other ordinary has the same “general duty” with respect to his jurisdiction, whether territorial or personal. This means ensuring that those who celebrate the mass, or any other liturgical celebration, in a language other than their native tongue have sufficient literacy and fluency in the language to celebrate properly in the chosen tongue. In the case of the Tridentine Use, this means sufficient literacy and fluency in Latin.

        You wrote: A Priest need only know what the prayers being said mean in their essentials, and this can be secured by memorisation. Also, once a Priest has said even one such Mass, he is presumed to know enough Latin to continue doing so, unless challenged on this.

        It is the diocesan bishop or other ordinary who sets the standard within his jurisdiction. For better or worse, our opinions don’t carry much weight on this.

        But having said that, I think that a presbyter or bishop who wishes to celebrate mass according to the 1962 missal should be sufficiently literate in Latin to understand the rubrics therein. This is a somewhat higher bar than simply “know[ing] what the prayers… mean in their essentials.”

        You wrote: Presbyter is only a Greek word meaning ‘Priest’. Your assertion about a distinction in meaning is fatuous. Every Bishop is both Priest and Deacon (de facto); every Priest is also Deacon (de facto: it could be sacramentally valid to receive a higher order without having received a lower one).

        The Second Vatican Council actually changed this, at least liturgically. A bishop now always participates in the liturgy as a bishop and a presbyter always participates in the liturgy as a presbyter, even though both received the lower orders before receiving their current orders. When not the principal celebrant, they may assist in choir or they may concelebrate — but they no longer exercise the role of a lower order. The “General Instructions” in the respective orders of worship provide for distribution of the deacon’s duties among the other ministers when there is no deacon to assist in a liturgical celebration.

        Norm.

      • Holy Scripture sees these: presbyter (presbuteros) elder; episkopos – bishop/overseerer as the same.

    • P.K.T.P. says:

      It can be no more than a request since, in law, the A.U. people are part of the Latin Church and their Priests (not ‘Presbyters’, Norm) have all the rights enumerated in “Summorum Pontificum”. On the matter of the Latin Mass in Victoria, there already is a stable community and a celebrant who is in no way connected to the A.U. However, A.U. priests would certainly be welcome to offer the Latin Mass in that Parish. I was not suggesting that an A.U. Priest might offer the Latin Mass in the A.U. parish premises; however, in law, at least, that does remain possible, pace Msgr. Steenson.

      P.K.T.P.

      • Ioannes says:

        Maybe the only way I can think kindly of the decision to prohibit the Latin Mass in the Ordinariates, is by comparing the various rites within the Latin Church, the Dominicans, Carmelites, Ambrosians, etc; the fact that they exclude other forms of masses (if they -do- exclude) is understandable from a certain lawful perspective.

        Then, we home into one of the issues going on with the Traditional form of Mass; the Ordinariates can’t dodge this- even if they’re newly confirmed, they’ve gotta deal with how Summorum Pontificum is handled. Or rather how it is mishandled by many bishops, including one Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina. And ignored by a vast majority of western bishops.

        I can understand if there is a short supply of priests who can competently say the Mass- but it’s another thing when a group, such as the FSSP, is actively prohibited from entering the diocese, as if they’re SSPX/sedevacantist lunatics. The bishop has the right to bind or loosen, I won’t deny that, but it is reasonable to have suspicions about attitudes regarding the treatment of traditionalists by a non-traditional majority. One must ask, does a priest need to be a source of scandal in order to be cared for by the bishop, or is being a traditionalist enough of a scandal to warrant barring the promotion of their spirituality?

        In Los Angeles, the former used to be the case with Cardinal Mahony, now it’s probably the latter. Maybe I’m being “uncharitable” by demanding the right to proper worship

        (For example, the “Neocatechumenal Way” had caused problems for the Japanese bishops because of their unwarranted takeover of churches, a problem addressed to Rome but somehow ignored, and the followers of the Kiko Arguello personality cult continue as they please. The reverse seems to be the case in how the FSSP is unwelcome in Los Angeles, and I saw no need for any prelate to complain to Rome about those pesky traditionalists. Enough people of influence hate us.)

        I can hear the claim “But the Mass of Paul VI IS proper worship!” To which I say, no. No it isn’t, at least where I live. There are plenty of priests here who preach about respecting people’s spirituality, but they only mean a certain spirituality in which I see no merit, nor have a desire to be a part of.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        Dear IrishAnglican:

        It is the Holy Scripture that emerged from the Church, not the Church from Holy Scripture. All orders were originally one but were separated by the authority of God held by the bishops.

        P.K.T.P.

      • The Bible of the Early & Apostolic Church was of course the Septuagint (LXX), i.e. the translation into Greek of the OT. And when we look at the NT itself, it is so often quotes from both the LXX, and also from St. Paul who liked to quote the Hebrew Text (Masoretic Text) itself, and quite often using or making a free translation here, itself.

        If we use and look close at Saul/Paul, he was always quoting and writing from the OT, from his use of Creation (1 Cor. 19: 26, quoting Ps. 24:1); the Fall (Rom. 3: 10-18…and of course here is Original Sin, Creation’s curse, Adam, our Federal Head, and of course the last Adam, Christ.. and ‘In Christ’).

        And we simply cannot forget Paul and “the Prophets”: Israel and the Gentiles! It is from Israel itself, that Paul saw that the Gentiles coming in to the Covenant! (Rom. 15: 8) So yes, indeed the Bible of the Apostolic Church was the OT! (2 Tim. 3: 14-16)

  7. P.K.T.P. says:

    No, Norm, a Priest may act as a Deacon or even a Subdeacon at the Traditional Latin Mass, which was never abrogated. There is no ontological distinction between a Priest and a Presbyter, and Priest is the customary term in English. If you wish to resort to Hellenistic Greek, you will need a different keyboard setting. The sanctuary is also called a ‘prebyterium’ and this has always been the case. I don’t care a whit if the law requires that, at the New Mass, a Priest may not take the role of a Deacon. That does not come from the Council but from laws enacted later on, and it does not make for a distinction in terminology in English, only one in law at the New Mass, which is a Mass I do my best to avoid attending. It has no effect, liturgically, at the unabrogated T.L.M., which Pope Paul VI failed to suppress in his Notification entitled De Missali Romano of 1971 (not to be confused with the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum of 1970).

    You are wrong in saying that the Bishop has the primary control of liturgy regarding the Latin Mass. Not any more. Read Universæ Ecclesiæ of 2012 on this: the P.C.E.D. is now the hierarchical superior OVER the local bishop on this. But that was not my point. It is that priests have a fundamental function to offer the T.L.M., a right which stems from their spiritual orientation as priests in the Roman Rite, and the Bishop has no right to forbid them provided that they are qualified and are in good standing. Under the clarifications enacted in U.E., 5 May, 2012, the restrictions on this are very light. Read what Alfons Cardinal Stickler reported that the 1986 Commission of Cardinals had to say about this. U.E. (I don’t have it in front of me to cite clauses) means that a Priest could memorise a translation of the Ordinary to be qualified to offer the T.L.M., and is presumed at law to be qualified if he’s offered it in the past. You are right that he ‘should’ know enough Latin to understand the prayer at first sight, but this is not strictly required. As for the lections, they can be read in the vernacular from the pulpit, (although i am opposed to that practice for other reasons).

    The nine members of the Commission, one of whom was Cardinal Ratzinger, found unanimously that no bishop could forbid a priest in good standing from offering the Traditional Latin Mass because it is a right inherent in a priest qua priest: it flows from the priestly state. Cardinal Stickler also said that eight of the nine cardinals found that the T.L.M. had never been abrogated. The ninth one did not dissent but abstained from the vote. Summorum Pontificum settled the matter in 2007. You seem to lack a certain understanding about the effect of orientation on the soul of a cleric. Priests offer Mass in union with the Bishop but have certain essential functions (let’s use the French term: fonctions) arising from their priestly character. In the Roman Rite, one of them is to offer Mass–any Mass–in the lingua sacra of the Rite. Arguably, if a Priest is not qualified to do so, he has a right to demand that he be re-trained at the Diocese’s expense to enable him to do that. This is why, at the end of the last Pontificate,
    Benedict XVI issued a final apostolic letter on the NEED for Latin training in the seminaries.

    I am glad that you admit that Msgr. Steenson has no authority to forbid an Ordinariate priest from offering the Traditional Latin Mass at an Ordinariate venue. He may discourage it; he may not forbid it. However, a discouragement would be inappropriate. The Anglican Use is much closer liturgically and culturally to the 1962 Latin Mass than it is to the New Mass in a non-sacral idiom. I suggest the Msgr. Steenson discourage A.U. priests (not ‘presbyters’) from celebrating the Novus Ordo Missæ. You say that Latin is not part of the Anglican Use patrimony (and yet the Book of Common Prayer exists in an official Latin translation!). I say that the use of a non-sacral idiom in any language is not part of the A.U. patrimony. But, in neither case does this mean that an A.U. priest can be forbidden by his local or proper ordinary from offering those other Masses.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Ioannes says:

      I support the Anglican Use, and that it ought not be divorced from the Mother of the Western Liturgies, which is the Mass of St. Gregory, reformed during Trent, and further during the 1962. The Mass of Paul VI no longer reflects “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” and it is foreign even to the ancient Apostolic Churches of the East because there exists no mystery in that Liturgy. Laypersons, especially -women- now violate the Sanctuary and pretend to be priests. No doubt, they will quote some document from the Second Vatican Council to support their sacrilege.

      Guess what, The Second Vatican Council never defined a new dogmatic teaching, so no one is obligated to follow it unless viewed from the lens of the previous councils! It was a pastoral council, and was filled with compromises that resulted in a nebulous document that could be interpreted however. Ask Cardinal Kasper.

      And, it is CANON LAW that Seminarians master Latin. According to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, The Code of Canon Law can. 249 requires… it doesn’t suggest… it requires that all seminarians be taught both Latin so that they are very proficient and also any other language useful for their ministry. This is selectively ignored by many, many, many, many bishops and priests along with their “Spirit of Vatican 2 Fan Club” who seem to follow a different religion than what I, and Catholics from 2,000 years of Church history follow. It all stems from this thing called “Hermeneutic of Discontinuity” and I certainly hope the Ordinariates avoid this like the plague.

      I hope the Ordinaries are NOT a part of the pseudo-Vatican 2 pan-heresy that resulted from that generation. People went crazy during the 60’s because they saw The Church as a part of “The Man” who have all these rules who wants to keep the oppressed children in Vietnam from free love and far-out music, man. I hope the Ordinaries have a track record of being against that sort of thing.

      “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30)

  8. EPMS says:

    Even if one cannot technically “be forbidden” to do something, ignoring the clear wishes of one’s superior is not the way to build up a fragile organisation, IMHO.

  9. P.K.T.P. says:

    To add to my last comment, having priests serve as deacon and subdeacon (not concelebrating) is clearly part of the Anglican Patrimony, a patrimony which has its origins in the Traditional Roman Rite, both the use of Rome and that of Salisbury and York and others. This is why we can and do see A.U. priests at A.U. Masses acting as deacon and subdeacon. In fact, now that Victoria, B.C., has three regular priests, I expect that we shall see this quite often on Sunday mornings at 10.00 a.m., and there is nothing ‘Norm’ can do about it–thank God.

    One thing the Anglican Patrimony did not emerge from was the revolutionary Novus Disordo. True, the Anglican Use unfortunately has N.O. elements from the early 1980s, but the Patrimony itself is pre-conciliar in all its forms. This is no doubt why many A.U. priests would rather offer Mass according to the 1962 Missale than the 1970 one.

    P.K.T.P.

  10. P.K.T.P. says:

    Dear Ionnes:

    A careful reading of S.P. and U.E. shows the following (with other laws also):

    1. The local Bishop certainly does have the right to bar the F.S.S.P or I.C.R. (&c.) from his diocese, unless the P.C.E.D., acting as ‘hierarchical superior’ overrides the local Bishop in accordance with an Article in U.E. That is the great value of U.E. However, it seems unlikely that Pope Francis’s administration will apply this law. In any case, the new Pope may rely on moral suasion to convince bishops to co-operate with S.P. and U.E. And this may work. Many of the more liberal bishops will do for Pope Francis what they were not willing to do for Pope Benedict XVI. This remains to be seen but I’d watch France. That is where we shall see which way it will go. I suspect that the, um, leftist Bishops of the north-east, who wanted to defy Benedict XVI on this will co-operate from a ‘plea’ (not a command) from Francis.

    2. Article 5 has confused many people over the last few years, people like Norm. It must be read together with Article 1 of S.P. and Canon 837. Article 5 is misleading to ordinary gents because it seems to be restrictive in a way it is not. It never says that a Priest may *only* offer the 1962 Latin Mass publicly if a group of faithful request this. The adverb ‘only’ is nowhere present in the Latin or official English text. This is what people miss! It says that, if such a group makes such a request, they should be accommodated to the extent possible and in accordance with the other norms of law, and so forth. But it does not say that a Celebrant may not proceed unless such a group has lodged such a request. May he proceed with a *public* Latin Mass if not even one faithful requests it? The answer, to the horror of countless liberals, is affirmative. In our own Diocese of Victoria, our 1962 Latin Mass was restored publicly by Fr. Alex MacLellan purely on his own initiative as Parish Priest. No cœtus fidelium requested it; no individual requested it. He did consult with the local Bishop and inform him but only as a courtesy.

    Since Article 5 says nothing to answer this one way or the other, one must turn to Article 1 and Canon 837 (also 901). Without belabouring details in this very informal forum, Article 1 says that priests of the Roman Rite (including A.U. priests!) have a fundamental prerogative to offer the 1962 Mass in Latin in general. Canon 837 says that Mass is public by definition and general ecclesiastical law says that, when possible, a Celebrant who has no congregation, should try to find one or two persons to assist at the Mass. Articles 2 and 4 of S.P. deal with Masses ‘sine populo’, meaning not ‘without any people’ but without a public congregation. In particular ecclesiastical law, it oddly comes down to whether or not the Mass in question is announced in accordance with a regular schedule (a temporal rule for two or more Masses, such as ‘every other Thursday or ‘every Sunday’ or ‘one Sunday per month).. Articles 2 and 4 cover the cases of priests who offer the T.L.M. but without making them public. A priest who is a curate or vicar may not have permission from the Parish Priest to offer Mass publicly, for example. But even a P.P. may choose not to offer the Mass in accordance with a regular schedule at any one sacred place. Then his Mass is ‘sine populo’ in law.

    Anyway, a Parish Priest has the right under Article 1 of S.P. and Canon 837 to offer the T.L.M. *publicly* and without responding to any request from any faithful at all. He may also invite other priests to do so in the church which is under his care, even retired priests, A.U. priests, or biritual priests. The local Bishop has no authority in law to stop such Masses, although he can find ways to obstruct them, such as by questioning the qualifications of a priest to say the Latin Mass or by moving a traditionalist priest to a far-distant parish or making him hospital chaplain. But he must be careful because lay beneficiaries of that Mass could appeal to the P.C.E.D.

    3. All priests of the Roman Rite, including A.U. priests, have the right to offer the 1962 Latin Mass and the New Mass in Latin or in the vernacular. Latin is the lingua sacra of the Roman Rite, even for A.U. priests, and every priest of the Latin Church has a fundamental prerogative to offer Mass in Latin, whether the 1962 Mass or the New Mass. A Parish Priest of the Anglican Use, for instance, has the prerogative to offer the 1962 Latin mass at the Ordinariate Parish Church whenever he pleases, provided that he fulfils other superordinate duties, like celebrating the Anglican Use Mass for his own people. He may also invite other A.U. priests or non-A.U priests to his Parish Church to do this.

    Msgr. Steenson has authority in the first instance over such Masses to ensure that they are properly celebrated. But he does not have final authority in this matter, for that has been removed by the previous Pope and given to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. In other words, in a conflict between the Personal Ordinary of an Ordinariate and the P.C.E.D., it is the latter that has the higher authority in the matter. This is explained in Universæ Ecclesiæ, 5 May, 2012.

    4. The idea that the 1962 Latin Mass is somehow incompatible with the Anglican Use Patrimony is farcical. The Anglican Patrimony grew organically out of the Traditional Roman Rite and not out of the reformed Rite of Paul VI. Therefore, the Traditional Rite is inseparable from the Anglican Patrimony, which is also why some traditioanlist Anglicans have offered Sarum Use Masses down over the centuries. Any A.U. priest may offer the 1962 Latin Mass, the 1970 Mass in Latin or the 1970 Mass in the vernacular and in no way is this an obstacle to anything provided that A.U. priests serve the liturgical and disciplinary needs of their own people first.

    Sorry for the sloppy writing but this was all entered in a wild hurry.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Ioannes says:

      Don’t worry, sir.

      I have great joy in reading your writing. If this is you in a wild hurry, I’d like to see what you’d come up with after a great amount of meditation and thought!

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Peter,

      You wrote: 2. Article 5 has confused many people over the last few years, people like Norm. It must be read together with Article 1 of S.P. and Canon 837. Article 5 is misleading to ordinary gents because it seems to be restrictive in a way it is not. It never says that a Priest may *only* offer the 1962 Latin Mass publicly if a group of faithful request this. The adverb ‘only’ is nowhere present in the Latin or official English text. This is what people miss!

      You are very badly confused here, at least in your attribution of such misreading to me. I never asserted that the word “only” appeared anywhere in the text, or that the public celebration of the mass according to the Tridentine form in any way requires a request from parishionners. I certainly hope that a pastor would be responsive to such a request from parishionners, but there’s no doubt that a pastor may institute a regularly scheduled mass according to the Tridentine form on his own initiative if he thinks that there’s a demand for it.

      That said, any mass celebrated according to the Tridentine form at a published time should be clearly advertised as such so that those of you who prefer that form can choose to assist at it and those of us who prefer the current ordinary form can choose to assist at another mass.

      Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        No, Norm, he may not only institute it if they thinks there’s a demand for it. A Parish Priest may institute a public T.L.M. even if he thinks that there is not a demand for it. It is entirely within his right to do so. I wrote that ‘people like Norm’ misunderstand this, not that you had made a contrary claim. The point is that this is misunderstood widely. Article 5 tends to confuse people. They mistakenly think that a P.P. may only offer the T.L.M. publicly if a group of faithful have asked for this, and that is not the case. They may do so, even publicly, for any reason that they wish, even if nobody asks for it and there is no demand for it, provided that the other norms of law are observed. The purpose of the Articles after Article 1, in part, is to assure that such Masses do not in any way restrict a reasonable access to the New Mass. This is because, if there are two Rites available and only so many priests, hours and places of worship, there could be potential conflicts. But as long as there are no such conflicts, the P.P. may proceed, or may invite another Priest in good standing (and with faculties) to proceed. For example, a P.P. could add a T.L.M. at 2.00 p.m. on Sundays and have a retired Priest offer it for five people, or for two people for that matter.

        P.K.T.P.

  11. P.K.T.P. says:

    Norm shows his error when he writes this:

    “You seem to misunderstand Msgr. Steenson’s directive. It does not forbid clergy of the ordinariate from celebrating the liturgy according to the Tridentine Use. Rather, it says only that the Tridentine use is not appropriate for celebration of mass within ordinariate communities, whose members clearly do not have a “particular attachment thereto” and thus do not fall within the group for whom Summorum pontificam was intended.”

    Again, the right and prerogative to benefit from the 1962 Mass in Latin is not restricted to lay petitioners but includes priests. Moreover, an Anglican Use member, laic or cleric, can have an attachment to both the A.U. and the Traditional Latin Mass. I am glad that you admit that Msgr. Steenson’s directive is not a command. He can opine that the Traditional Latin Mass is not part of the Anglican Patrimony (in which case his opinion would be incorrect) or that the New Mass in the vernacular is not part of the Anglican Patrimony (in which case he’d be right) but he has no authority to prevent an A.U. Parish Priest from publicly or privately offering the Traditional Latin Mass or the New Mass (whether in Latin or in the vernacular) at a sacred place of the same Parish. Period.

    The directive is onerous because it amounts to a veiled threat. Beware of smiling liberals. They are so pleasant on the outside but inwardly they can be something else.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Peter,

      You wrote: Again, the right and prerogative to benefit from the 1962 Mass in Latin is not restricted to lay petitioners but includes priests.

      Yes, and this is precisely where the distinction between a mass with a congregation (celebrated at a published time) and a mass without a congregation (sometimes called a “private” mass) is vital. At a mass without a congregation, the principal celebrant is completely free to do whatever, within the bounds of liturgical law, fits his personal spirituality. At a mass with a congregation, however, his primary pastoral responsibility is to serve the congregation.

      You wrote: He can opine that the Traditional Latin Mass is not part of the Anglican Patrimony (in which case his opinion would be incorrect) or that the New Mass in the vernacular is not part of the Anglican Patrimony (in which case he’d be right) but he has no authority to prevent an A.U. Parish Priest from publicly or privately offering the Traditional Latin Mass or the New Mass (whether in Latin or in the vernacular) at a sacred place of the same Parish. Period.

      Actually, not quite. He also can restrict the faculties for the celebration of mass that he grants to clergy of the ordinariate.

      Backing up a step, you are missing the fundamental principle of canon law that a person who can perform a greater action can also perform a lesser included action. Thus, any diocesan bishop or other ordinary who holds canonical power to grant faculties for public ministry without restriction also can grant limited faculties permitting public ministry only in certain situations or under certain conditions. Also, conversely, any diocesan bishop or other ordinary who has canonical power to suspend faculties also can impose restrictions on their use.

      You wrote: Beware of smiling liberals. They are so pleasant on the outside but inwardly they can be something else.

      Yes, I’m well aware.

      But the same is true of smiling Traditionalists.

      Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        We don’t smile… On the outside.

        At least I don’t smile. My smile scares children away and wilts flowers. I don’t fit in with the Novus Ordo people with their bongos and tambourines and Hollywood smiles.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: At least I don’t smile. My smile scares children away and wilts flowers.

        And it probably does not win very many converts to Christian faith, either.

        Actually, this comment brings to mind a dialog that took place at a mass celebrated for a Charismatic Renewal group in my archdiocese some years ago. During the homily, the homilist asked, “Do you all believe that the gospel is good news?” The overwhelming majority of the congregation nodded, whereupon the homilist said, “Well, tell your faces! For people who claim to be rejoicing in good news, you should see the dour expressions!”

        And yes, some Traditionalists also would do well to take heed….

        Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        Here’s my problem with those happy-smiley Charismatic Catholics.

        It’s all about Joy, and emotionalism

        What they fail to tell you is that Joy is not an emotion- it may be expressed through the emotions, but does not emanate from the emotions. The emotions are at the service of Joy, not the other way around. Joy comes from knowledge, knowledge leads to Joy- not just any knowledge, but the knowledge of God, the knowledge gained from peering into the ancient mysteries of Heaven and absolute truth. That knowledge leads to Joy.

        But running around the sanctuary, clapping hands, hugging, and crying and feeling all sorts of things doesn’t mean someone’s a good Catholic. It doesn’t mean they possess the knowledge of God and have plumbed His inscrutable ways. Our Blessed Lord said “Know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free” That is to say, free to love God, to serve Him out of gratitude for all that he has done for us. Knowledge leads to Joy. But emotion leads to heresy.

        When churchmen let emotion become the standard by which we see ourselves in the light of truth, it’s game over. Emotion can’t even judge itself, much less reality. It’s like being infatuated- quite frequently, life comes undone, people fall apart, and all sorts of craziness follows- the end usually is described by a lot of “I’m in love and it’s terrible” sort of sappy love songs. It’s not love, it’s emotion.

        When emotions are in the driver’s seat, we crash and die. But when emotions are in the service of and made subordinate to intellect, they become the vehicle for expressing the Joy that floods the soul. But this distinction is never discussed by Charismatic Catholics. They place all their eggs on the basket of sentimentality and fuzzy-warm-nice feelings. What it does is rule out of bounds any serious discussion of the Divine Love, with all the demands that love brings with it. Human emotions are so overemphasized that the Divine Mind can be ignored.

        That is why we traditionalists are careful when Church leaders talk about “joy”- they present a giant red flag. We wish to be sober- it is the Roman way; it is -gravitas- We are suspicious of emotionalism and those who talk too much about “joy” and those who make spectacles of themselves in church because of “joy” as if possessed, and I doubt it’s the Holy Spirit that takes hold of them, for the Holy Spirit does not manifest Himself in a disordered manner that lacks any intellectual and substantial content, nor does He manifest Himself in the pagan frenzy Pentecostals partake in that Catholics seem to imitate nowadays.

        People don’t need to be told to be joyful or think about being joyful or reminded to be joyful, in the same way people who genuinely love each other don’t need to be told constantly to love each other or be told to think about their beloved. But when some in the Church have failed to properly understand the real meaning of Joy, its basis upon the intellect, then they settle for a cheap imitation and they want everyone else to buy into it. That sort of joy is counterfeit. Joy comes from real, serious knowledge of God- not delusions presented by emotionalism, spiritual delusions Slavic Christians call “Prelest”

        The problem of this Charismatic Church is simple; it has accepted the Luciferian view of human nature, and turned upside-down the correct ordering of the human being. It emphasizes emotions and PASSIONS, over knowledge and intellect. Our Lord says freedom and truth and love are part of the larger part, rooted in the choice to obey Him, to continue in His word. Then, and only then does Joy follow.

        People in the Church who love the Faith and continue in the word of God are able to keep these necessary distinctions. Joy follows Love, which proceeds from knowledge. For how can you love what you do not know? And knowledge demands sobriety and clear-headedness that emotionalism and the superficiality of “smiling for reasons unknown” cannot produce.

      • Ioannes says:

        As an additional thought, I’m not proposing that the Church become some sort of stoic, somber, emotionless organization of people who don’t know how to smile. I propose that it is sober and restrained. I smile from time to time, when there is something genuinely worth smiling about (and it’s a bonus if there’s no one around) but I do not waste my smile merely by any random emotion. Emotion has its place, and it must be controlled, because if it is unchecked, then we can’t do moral things that are informed by our free will- we are in danger of doing evil things out of passion and impulse, and even the liturgy is not safe if there is nothing but emotion, sentiment and feelings, untempered by reason and self-denial.

        I wouldn’t want to love God on the same basis that I become infatuated with a pretty girl- I just set myself up for disappointment later on. “Oh, Lord, why do you allow this to happen?” “Oh, Lord, do you delight in my suffering?” “Oh, Lord why did you take so-and-so away from me?” “Oh, Lord, I am in so much pain, You don’t ‘love’ me after all!” It eventually contributes to a sort of distorted intellect that joins in the skeptic’s chorus at Golgotha: “Well, if you’re God, why don’t you come down from your Cross, and take me with you?”

        Truth is comprised of both Intellect and Emotion- This is the reason why we are not idolaters- the images we venerate we venerate because we intellectually know the images are not the same as the people they represent, but emotionally we are stirred because our senses and thought are focused by the very fact of the representation. Only children, the misinformed, and intentional idolaters who would think the statue of the Blessed Virgin is the Virgin herself, who is in Heaven. The lack of intellectual understanding probably produced the historical reaction that is now spouted off by iconoclastic Protestant sects who are emotionally invested in the hatred of Roman Catholicism with all the straw men they have constructed of our religion.

        When you talk to someone on the telephone, you suspend your intellectual understanding that the entire experience is nothing more than an engineered combination of plastic, electrical signals, metal, sound waves and other parts; you become emotionally invested in the experience that it gets hard to separate oneself intellectually; you certainly don’t talk to people on the phone as if they’re nothing more than electrical signals, right?- This is the reason why the Holy Eucharist is not merely an exercise of intellect, of philosophy and theology, but also an emotional experience. Yet we cannot be only intellectual about it, or the Real Presence ceases to be personally real and becomes an abstraction that is divorced from humanity and mystery- thus it loses its supernatural characteristic, as it is experienced by the communicant, when we explain away everything about the Eucharist; and we cannot be only emotional about it because we would no longer recognize the Eucharist, but instead let ourselves be lost in what we feel- from this lack of intellect, delusion and abuse is derived, well-meaning as they may be.

        This is why asceticism is important. To say “NO!” to ourselves, to deny ourselves- not that denial in itself will be our salvation, but in denial of ourselves, it becomes easier to not be attached to the things of this world, the things that feed off our passions, the things which lead us astray from the narrow path to Salvation. This includes detachment from trivial matters that distract us from our goals. This is exemplified by the lack of clear-headed objectivity in the liturgy because of sentimentalism that makes it easy to be manipulated for one questionable end or another. Again, this does not mean we ought to work towards the absolute extinguishing of one’s emotions, but rather the harnessing of it- because if on the other side, there is no emotion, then there is no underlying drive to self-denial, no engine, no momentum. The intellect presents a goal, the emotion generates the actual movement towards it, all the while the intellect tempering that the emotion does not veer off course. Once the intellect is extinguished, there is only movement and its destination is uncertain. It is uncertain because it is unrestrained.

        In the liturgy, it becomes apparent when “Active Participation” is characterized by so much movement and other distraction in the liturgy- the congregation has to always be singing, always touching, always looking, always moving- but the mental, spiritual asceticism is all but forgotten amidst the misplaced feelings of euphoria and other emotions.

        Outside the liturgy, in the spiritual lives the traditionalists live for ought to be hard. As reflected by the asceticism of our traditional Mass, we cannot be comfortable, because there is stagnation in comfort and complacency. The only place of comfort and peace ought to be in Christ Himself, and through the works that glorify Him.

        While He promised that His Church will not be lost to Hell, He did not say every particular church will survive. Is this cause for perpetual smiling? This is troubling, because it is the mission of the Church, and that means YOU as well, is to get as many people to Heaven as possible. Should I be happy that entire nations reject Jesus Christ and spit on His Holy Face by accepting the injustices that offend Him so, when children are murdered by their own mothers or when unnatural union between men is considered “normal” and “natural”? Nevermind my own suffering, because the Day of Judgement may come at any time- what have we done to get someone to Heaven lately? At least I agitate so that we may avoid falling into comfort and a weak and unsure “Don’t worry, God’s gonna take care of it all”

        So for those who in their churches love to smile and feel good, how strong will such a sentiment last when death comes for them at the hands of those who hate Christ? Will they scatter like those Apostles who did not understand what our Lord had to do that Good Friday? Or when Christ merely wish that they return home to Him? Will they be prepared when God judges them? What have I done or said that could have helped them be martyrs, even if not by their deaths, so that they will go to Heaven?

        Always work out your own salvation in fear and trembling, said St. Paul, and after detaching myself from the sort of spirituality promoted by an easy liturgy, I definitely understand what St. Paul meant. How arrogant would it be to think that Satan does not work ceaselessly towards our own destruction!

        There is always a problem, in the Church and in the world, and I find it dishonest to force a smile upon my face as I contemplate the reason why I pray for those who need prayers. I do not smile as I think about those Christians killed in China and elsewhere- and those who killed them, or those unborn children- and those who killed them, or the souls in danger of Hell. Should I smile? If I should smile, it would be like smiling while people commit suicide- it would not matter if they were having a good time doing it, would it? But I have internal Joy and do not have despair because God is merciful and all-loving so as to suffer His Passion, die on the Cross, and came back from death, and promised us eternal life in the world to come. This is sufficient to enable me to bear the pain I experience in the world, but may the Lord help me always, because I am weak, and this fact does not cause me to smile.

        The reason the path to Salvation is so narrow and hard is because what Christ promised us is so simple- Eternal Life, happiness with Him forever. Whereas the path the world offers is so wide, because there are so many things in the world that we can love and devote our lives to- things -other- than God. It is easy to get them because they feed off our passions like leeches- they even seem to look like the proper-shaped peg to fill the appropriate-shaped void in our lives and we will receive them if we want them, but they do not lead to Salvation if they are opposed to the ultimate purpose of all human life, which is devotion and faithfulness to God. The fact that more people go to Hell freely does not cause me to smile.

      • Here’s a simple but profound statement from our Lord, that no doubt expresses the great error of those that are “wrong” about the nature and doctrine of God:

        “Jesus said to them, “Is not this why you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power (“dunamis”) of God.” (Mark 12: 24) Sadly, there are far too many in this place within the so-called churches of God, both Protestant and Catholic!

      • And btw, this was the reason the Jewish Nation and leadership missed their Messiah! They knew something of the “letter” of Scripture, bur certainly not its living personal power!

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        Dear Norm:

        On your first point, you are simply wrong, or else the distinction you are drawing has no bearing on what I wrote. In all cases, the Celebrant is bound strictly to adhere to the rubrics. The distinction you are making is false. A Mass ‘sine populo’ under Articles 2 and 4 of S.P. can actually have a large congregation but may not be published in accordance with a regular temporal schedule. The Priest may also leave the doors open and others who enter are deemed to be regarded as among the ‘invited guests’.

        On your second point, a Parish Priest who has faculties has all the faculties to offer the T.L.M. or the New Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular. He may also invite other Priests to do so if they have faculties. A Priest may not be deprived of faculties save for a just cause, and offering the T.L.M. is not per se a just cause for doing so. Your point, then?

        A right to offer the T.L.M. flows from a Priest’s membership in the Latin Church and can not be cause for any restriction per se. This was determined by the Commission of Cardinals of 1986 and then settled definitively by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007.

        On your last point, there are very few traditionalist who smile all day long like the gawking liberals. Traditionalists work out their salvation in fear and trembling. They have sin and death frequently before their eyes. They also smile and many of them have a good sense of humour. But that is a matter of moderation.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Peter,

        You wrote: On your first point, you are simply wrong, or else the distinction you are drawing has no bearing on what I wrote.

        Or you misconstrued what I wrote. The first point to which you refer (emphasis in original):

        Yes, and this is precisely where the distinction between a mass with a congregation (celebrated at a published time) and a mass without a congregation (sometimes called a “private” mass) is vital. At a mass without a congregation, the principal celebrant is completely free to do whatever, within the bounds of liturgical law, fits his personal spirituality. At a mass with a congregation, however, his primary pastoral responsibility is to serve the congregation.

        You continued: In all cases, the Celebrant is bound strictly to adhere to the rubrics.

        Of course. Did I say otherwise?

        You continued: The distinction you are making is false.

        Rather, the distinction is explicit in the present General Instructions of the Roman Missal. Note the following text (boldface mine).

        352. The pastoral effectiveness of a celebration will be greatly increased if the texts of the readings, the prayers, and the liturgical songs correspond as closely as possible to the needs, spiritual preparation, and culture of those taking part. This is achieved by appropriate use of the wide options described below.

        The priest, therefore, in planning the celebration of Mass, should have in mind the common spiritual good of the people of God, rather than his own inclinations. He should, moreover, remember that the selection of different parts is to be made in agreement with those who have some role in the celebration, including the faithful, in regard to the parts that more directly pertain to each.

        Since, indeed, a variety of options is provided for the different parts of the Mass, it is necessary for the deacon, the lectors, the psalmist, the cantor, the commentator, and the choir to be completely sure before the celebration about those texts for which each is responsible is to be used and that nothing be improvised. Harmonious planning and carrying out of the rites will be of great assistance in disposing the faithful to participate in the Eucharist.

        You continued: A Mass ‘sine populo’ under Articles 2 and 4 of S.P. can actually have a large congregation but may not be published in accordance with a regular temporal schedule. The Priest may also leave the doors open and others who enter are deemed to be regarded as among the ‘invited guests’.

        I don’t see how this changes anything. Those who freely ask to be admitted to be admitted to a “private” celebration of the mass according to the Tridentine use. It’s clearly reasonable to presume that such individuals are best served by the form of celebration to which they ask to be admitted. This includes not only individuals who are spiritually in tune with the Tridentine liturgy, but also individuals who wish to learn about the Tridentine liturgy.

        You wrote: On your second point, a Parish Priest who has faculties has all the faculties to offer the T.L.M. or the New Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular. He may also invite other Priests to do so if they have faculties. A Priest may not be deprived of faculties save for a just cause, and offering the T.L.M. is not per se a just cause for doing so. Your point, then?

        Rather, lack of training is sufficient reason to withhold faculties. We see this in the permanent deaconate, for which many dioceses have a dual track program — a longer track that includes training in homiletics and a shorter track that does not. In such dioceses, the deacons who have completed the longer track receive faculties to preach but the deacons who have completed the shorter track do not.

        With respect to the linguistic issue, to be clear, no priest should be celebrating the liturgy in any language in which he is not literate and fluent. Thus, a priest who is not literate and fluent in the language of a significant immigrant population who reside in his parish should not attempt to celebrate the liturgy in their language. Rather, he should either (1) arrange for a priest who is fluent in their language to celebrate mass for them or (2) refer them to a nearby parish that offers a mass in their language. And in the same way, a priest who is not sufficiently fluent in Latin to celebrate the Tridentine form also should not attempt to celebrate the ordinary form in Latin.

        Of course, it’s also quite reasonable for a diocesan bishop to insist that presbyters who wish to celebrate the liturgy according to the Tridentine form demonstrate sufficient understanding of the rubrics thereof to celebrate the Tridentine form properly. This could be in the form of completion of a training seminar taught at a seminary or, more simply, passing an exam on the Tridentine rubrics.

        This also has consequences for the parishes of the ordinariates and for the “Anglican Use” more generally. There’s no doubt of the provision of Anglicanorum coetibus granting the pastor of the diocesean geographical parish within which an ordinariate parish is located “[to] supply what is needed” whenever the pastor of an ordinariate parish that does not have a parochial vicar is “impeded,” but the liturgy may have to be according to the ordinary form on such occasions if the pastor of the diocesan parish does not have sufficient knowledge of the authorized “liturgical books of the Anglican tradition” to celebrate properly according to those books.

        Norm.

  12. Ouch there Norm! Indeed we can be both serious-minded, and yet full of the Joy of the Lord! Even us “Calvinist” types need to hear this! 😉

  13. EPMS says:

    Will we be hearing about the priestly ordinations in Victoria soon?

    • Sean Henry says:

      EPMS, if you have access to Facebook, you can see seventy-odd pictures of the priestly ordination on the Fellowship of Blessed John Henry Newman at Saint Columba’s page, https://www.facebook.com/blessedjohnhenrynewmanfellowship

    • P.K.T.P. says:

      I was present at the priestly ordinations (but was unable to attend the reception afterwards) and it mostly went very well, especially the music. In fact, the music, thanks to the choirmaster, was superb. The Ordination Mass was versus populum in the cathedral and with that horrid ‘local art’ frontal and candlesticks and ‘ambo’, none of which I could see whilst sitting behind a pillar, thank God. The three new ordinands are desperately needed in the City of Victoria and on the Island. They were very warmly welcomed.

      I expect that the new ordinands will offer a fair number of Novus Ordo Masses, which can only be a good thing for those attending that particular ritual. I am hoping very much that the three in Victoria will be offering High Masses on Sundays in the Anglican Use, a Use which seems to be getting more and more splendid as time passes. It is something that my Latin Mass community has never been able to manage, as we have never had more than two priests on hand at one time (one of whom was only sitting in, so the use of a straw subdeacon would have been impossible in any event).

      I am also hoping that the Anglican Use and Latin Mass communities may come together in Victoria from time to time for, say, Corpus Christi. I’m the M.C. for the Latin Mass and some of our boys have occasionally attended the A.U. Mass, and their parents liked it. We’d need help from the A.U. community to do C.C. properly. We already have half our congregation in the sanctuary and choirloft and it still isn’t sufficient, really. We need them! They seem to have a similar attitude towards the liturgy. I had to laugh when I heard that an old TAC Sarum Use Mass done at Perth, Western Australia, had more people serving in the sanctuary than sitting in the nave. Well, that is one thing we all want to change too!

      P.K.T.P.

  14. EPMS says:

    Thank you, Dr Henry.

  15. P.K.T.P. says:

    Norm,

    Your entire first point was misdirected. Here is the context of my claim:

    “Again, the right and prerogative to benefit from the 1962 Mass in Latin is not restricted to lay petitioners but includes priests.”

    Then you quote ad nauseum from the GIRM, which only applies to the Novus Disordo. It has no application whatsoever to the Traditional Latin Mass. Therefore, all your arguments from thence are false or misdirected.

    On your point about faculties, a priest has faculties to offer Mass or not, and he is presumed to have faculties to offer the T.L.M. if he has faculties to offer Mass. The local ordinary may suspend them if he does not know the rubrics or does not comprehend the Latin prayers. Under the very liberal interpretation of U.E., he does not need to know much. I add that, again under U.E., if he has periodically offered the T.L.M. before, he is presumed at law to know how to celebrate it.

    Your point about fluency in a vernacular Mass does not apply to Latin, the lingua sacra of the Latin Church. Read Canon 928: “The Eucharistic celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved.” There’s nothing about fluency there or anywhere else: only in your perfervid imagination. I don’t think that many priests anywhere are fluent in Latin, and I’ve noticed that the main Latin translator in the Vatican (a Carmelite who never wears a habit) was interviewed and could hardly say three consecutive sentences in the language. The purpose of liturgical Latin is to communicate with God, not with ‘the people’. That’s why the Priest faces God, whereas Novus Disordo presbyters face the people as they gladhand during Mass and talk among themselves, having no spirit of respect or of reverence.

    Passing an exam? Most local bishops could not pass an exam in Latin themselves. I wonder how they would translate ‘pro multis’? If the examinee were to translate it as ‘for many’, would he be marked wrong? Your speculations are ridiculous. Why do you waste our time with your endless rants?

    On your last point, I’m sure that most priests are sufficiently fluent in English to offer an Anglican Use Mass, even if the intelligence of the average Novus Ordo ‘presbyter’ these days is less than impressive. Mind you, while most N.O. priests are illiterate in Latin, they are also subliterate at the least in their native tongues.

    In closing, please don’t first-name me again. I’m not your friend. I was not present at your last birthday party. Please use the form ‘Mr. Perkins’.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Peter,

      You wrote: Your entire first point was misdirected. Here is the context of my claim:

      “Again, the right and prerogative to benefit from the 1962 Mass in Latin is not restricted to lay petitioners but includes priests.”

      Yes, and this is precisely where the distinction in <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum.htm&quot;Summorum pontificum between a “mass without the people” (Article 2) and a mass requested by the parishioners (Article 5) is significant.

      Then you quote ad nauseum from the GIRM, which only applies to the Novus Disordo. It has no application whatsoever to the Traditional Latin Mass.

      In so far as the General Instructions to the Roman Missal are speaking specifically about the ordinary form of the mass, this is true.

      But principles of effective pastoral ministry — which you seem not to recognize — are universal, and thus apply not only to all uses of the Roman Rite. And if you have any doubts, not also that Section 2 of Article 5 of Summorum pontificum imposes a limit of one public mass according to the Tridentine form in each parish on Sundays and holy days.

      Also, note that Section 4 of the same Article 5 stipulates qualification to use the Tridentine form that I stated earlier.

      On your last point, I’m sure that most priests are sufficiently fluent in English to offer an Anglican Use Mass, even if the intelligence of the average Novus Ordo ‘presbyter’ these days is less than impressive. Mind you, while most N.O. priests are illiterate in Latin, they are also subliterate at the least in their native tongues.

      On your last point, I’m sure that most priests are sufficiently fluent in English to offer an Anglican Use Mass, even if the intelligence of the average Novus Ordo ‘presbyter’ these days is less than impressive. Mind you, while most N.O. priests are illiterate in Latin, they are also subliterate at the least in their native tongues.

      There’s no doubt that literacy is not an issue for diocesan clergy to celebrate the liturgy according to the approved Anglican form. But understanding of the rubrics and ability to execute them correctly is still an issue. When the pastor of the geographical parish gets a phone call an hour before the mass of an ordinariate parish that the pastor of the ordinariate parish is incapacitated and he or one of his parochial vicars has to “pinch hit,” learning the differences before the mass isn’t going to happen.

      Incidentally, I think that the faculty to establish personal parishes for the Tridentine Use, as specifically permitted by Article 10 of Summorum pontificum, usually is the best solution where there are significant numbers of laity who prefer it.

      Norm.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Everybody,

        My bad. Here’s the correct link to the document.

        Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        ‘Norm’:

        You make two mistakes here. First of all, no, the GIRM, which is prefaced to each edn. of the N.O., does in no way apply to the T.L.M., whether on matters of pastoral solicitude or on any other matters. It is clearly a part, an essential part, of the Novus Ordo Missæ. Period.

        You seem, as usual, to misunderstand what a Mass sine populo is. it is not a Mass without any people present other than Celebrant and one Server: it is a Mass which is, according to the P.C.E.D.’s decisions, a Mass not offered in accordance with a public schedule in accordance with a temporal rule. One priest in France, by the way, had the habit of inviting guests (cf. Articles 2 and 4) but also leaving the doors open for others to come. The P.C.E.D. found that this did not make it a public Mass, and that those who came in as a result were deemed to be among those invited. In fact, a Mass ‘sine populo’ (which really means without a public congregation) can actually have a large number of people present at it.

        Secondly, your reference to Sectioin 2 of Art. 5 of S.P. is also mistaken. Again, people like you read in limits where there are none. The Article does not impose a limit of one Sunday Mass at all. It merely *suggests* that one Mass be celebrated in the circumstances envisioned. It says that, on Sundays, “one celebration may be held”; it does **NOT** say that *only* one may be held. It is a principle of Canon Law that, when there is no restriction, there is freedom. Hence if you must infer a closer meaning, you must infer that *at least* one may be held. To find out if more may be held, one must look again to the freedom afforded by Article 1 and to the mens of Canon 837. Obviously, the section, for example, does not mean that only one T.L.M. can be celebrated on Sundays in personal parishes set up for the T.L.M.! If so, many letters must go forth to correct abuses! The reason for the suggestion of one Mass is the reasonable tone set by the Article. The Legislator here is envisioning a case in which a small group has asked for a Sunday T.L.M. and the Parish Priest is already offering several Sunday New Masses. The purpose of the Articles is to ensure the rights of all those who prefer the New Mass and the Traditional Mass in a situation in which the number of Masses, celebrants, hours and places is limited by nature. However, a Parish Priest would be free to offer or have offered (e.g. by a retired priest) more than one T.L.M. on Sunday provided that his did not unduly restrict access to the New Mass. In cases of conflict, it is for the diocesan bishop to intervene. But if there be no conflict (e.g. between a group wanting a second T.L.M. on Sunday and one wanting, say, a fourth New Mass), then the Parish Priest is free to offer or have offered a second T.L.M.

        Note that, when Article 5 speaks of “parishes”, this includes parishes of the personal Ordinariates. It is not restrictive: they can be territorial or personal parishes. You are right that Msgr. Steenson has not ‘forbidden’ where he cannot forbid. The issue is whether or not he should be discouraging access to a benefit and a right of his own priests. Some will interpret his directive as an implicit threat, perhaps one emanating from Cardinal Wuerl in Washington. His argument that that the T.L.M. is not proper to the Ordinariates but the N.O.M. somehow is is risible. You cannot separate the T.L.M. from the Anglican Patrimony any more than you can separate the branch of a tree from its root. If anything, it is the revolutionary New Mass that is not properly part of the Anglican patrimony. But notice that I have not made that argument. I have argued for freedom of Ordinariate priests to offer all three at Ordinariate parish churches.

        Let’s put our feet on the ground more firmly here. The whole aim of Benedict XVI’s motu proprio was to give priests and faithful of the Roman Rite access to the Mass of Sacred Tradition. This is to be seen as a benefit for all, not something for Msgr. Steenson to restrict at his pleasure. Rome’s view (which is admitedly not the same as mine) is that the New Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass and the Anglican Use Mass are all benefits and boons to Holy Church and to the spiritual lives of all the priests of the Roman Rite. People like me wish to welcome the new priests of the Ordinariate and don’t want them to be told that they cannot have their rights as Roman priests. A Parish Priest of an Ordinariate Parish has a fundamental right to offer all three of these Masses for his own spiritual benefit and that of the faithful. It strikes me as niggardly and mean-spirited for some prelate to come along and try to discourage a gift granted by the Holy Ghost through the Pope. Who does he think he is? A little more charity from him would be welcome from him, but then, of course, he is perhaps in thrall of others in the American hierarchy–the usual liberals.

        P.K.T.P.

    • Stephen K says:

      P.K.T.P: et quantitas et qualitas responsi tui ad Normam exhibet inurbanitatem paenitendam miserabilemque. Etiam tua dismissio incauta et effusa presbyterorum illorum qui novum ordinem missae celebrant. Cur opinaris tibi ut sic facias oportere? Interest nequaquam utrum rectus es de missae celebrandi facultatibus necne: nemo aestimat scientiam latam cum malleo vel malevolentia, et nemo amat amaritudinem.

      • Ioannes says:

        You want “inurbanitatem” I’ll show you “inurbanitatem”- but Maybe not; I wouldn’t want to upset the owner of this blog.

        P.K.T.P has been very charitable in correcting the errors constantly being spread around here. I’ve been accused of being “More Catholic than the Pope” and yet I have not once called any other fellow Catholic on this blog a “heretic” who subscribes to a “heresy” – in fact, it may be true that more people are “More Catholic than the Pope” if we’re talking about this Francis who calls some Catholics “Pelagians” and mocks their spirituality.

        Truth is, the Bugnini Mass is defective because it is an innovation not on the same scale as the reforms undergone previously to the Mass of St. Gregory- if people say “but the Church has been innovating many things too!” Well, now that’s heresy, because it basically states that the Church does not contain the fullness of the Truth, since it requires innovation.

        At the heart of the Church is the Eucharist and the Liturgy surrounding it is important. If there is no uniformity in how people worship, I do not even think we belong to the same religion- that one church would allow abuses, and another would not; that one church receives a certain way, another would not. That was the point of the Tridentine reforms, that there were too many ways of practice that abuse could not be checked. Are you going to say that those reforms started by Pope Pius V were “uncharitable” because they forced uniformity in the Roman Church?

        All the problems in the Church are traced back to the liturgy, the disobedience in saying the black and doing the red, always. I don’t care how many abuses people have been doing before 1960’s, the fact is they’ve done them, and it is not because the Latin Mass needed to be changed, and changing it didn’t. If anything, people find themselves more free to do whatever the hell they want with the Bugnini Mass.

        The Bugnini Mass/Novus Ordo/Mass of Paul VI/The Hour of Power/whatever you call it, is a protestant liturgy. It ought to be abolished wherever it may be found!

  16. P.K.T.P. says:

    I have one last clarification to make for ‘Norm”:

    The GIRM, you should know, has legal application only to the New Roman Missal in its four editions (so far). No. 7 of the 1969 GIRM, which never had legal force, thank God, was heretical. The Holy Ghost stepped in and prevented its promulgation, which was then delayed to 1970. Thank you, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.

    The GIRM only applies to the text to which it is appended. It has no application to the 1962 Traditional Latin Mass, which was introduced by the Bull “Quo Primum Tempore” of 1570, as were the previous editions of 1925, 1884, 1627 and 1607.

    P.K.T.P.

  17. P.K.T.P. says:

    Another point for Norm:

    I also thank God that the GIRM has no authority for the Traditional Latin Mass. Presumably, it is also not prefaced for the Anglican Use. Its Articles were intended to destroy the Roman Rite, and they largely achieved this end. The passage Norm quotes, for example, translates into law the misreading on active participation taken from Mediator Dei of Ven. Pius XII (1948). The Pope called for “participatio actuosa”, not participatio activa. But this was mistranslated as the latter. The first means an ‘actual’ participation of the faithful. That would mean following the prayers silently and intending their import as one proceeds rather than, say, praying the Rosary during Mass, as was often done in the past. The latter means an ‘active’ participation, such as gladhanding atthe Pax, hugging, and throwing oneself onto the floor and barking like dogs, Pentecostal-Charismatic style, or waving in the air like morons during Mass.

    Norm also writes this tosh: “With respect to the linguistic issue, to be clear, no priest should be celebrating the liturgy in any language in which he is not literate and fluent.. . . . And in the same way, a priest who is not sufficiently fluent in Latin to celebrate the Tridentine form also should not attempt to celebrate the ordinary form in Latin.”

    On the contrary, because Latin is the sacred language of the Latin Church, every seminary has the duty to train priests to offer Mass in their own lingua sacra, and Canon 927 makes it clear that priests of the Latin Church have a right to offer Mass in Latin, whether according to the 1962 Mass or the defective New Mass. Nowhere is there a literacy requirement in the 1982 Code of Canons. Given Canon 928, it is arguable that a Priest has the right to demand training in Latin if he is found to be deficient to celebrate in his own lingua sacra. Under Canon 249, seminaries are REQUIRED to train priests in Latin (cf. Optatum Totius, 13). So a priest could demand from Msgr. Steenson that he be trained in Latin at the Ordinariate’s expense.. In addition, Norm is leading us astray. “Summorum Pontificum” and “Universæ Ecclesiæ” make it clear that the celebrant does NOT need to know Latin generally but only the meaning of the Latin prayers of the Mass (cf. Art. 20b). In other words, his Bishop may not ask him to translate a passage of Seneca or of Cicero, something few bishops could do themselves (so they’d have to call in a Latin Dept. at a University). Since the Gospel and Epistle may be read in the vernacular, the celebrant may not be tested on those as long as he repeated them before the Sermon. Since the minor propers may be memorised before any given Mass, he may not be tested on those either at a general exam. That means that he could only be tested on a translation of the prayers of the Ordinary and then only if his Ordinary insists on this, since he has general permission to proceed if he is not debarred otherwise by Canon Law (cf. Art. 20a and Art. 23 of U.E. with ref. to Canon 900). In the case of A.U. priests who wish to offer public Traditional Latin Masses at Ordinariate venues, the first-instance responsibility for this falls to their personal Ordinary, whether Msgr. Entwistle or the lesser personal Ordinaries, such as Msgr. Steenson, or whomever FiFer you can find.. But if Msgr. Steenson challenges an A.U. celebrant at an A.U sacred place, a group of faithful may appeal to the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Under Articles 9 to 14 of U.E., the P.C.E.D. may overrule Msgr. Steenson and force him to accept another Latin Mass celebrant for his Ordinariate parish site, including one sent in from, say, the F.S.S.P. That would be fun! A wise and prudent p.o. might proceed as Msgr. Entwistle has done, and save himself some trouble. But then Msgr. Entwistle is from the TAC. Too bad the other two aren’t.

    Under Article 23 of U.E., when offering the T.L.M. ‘sine populo’ for invited guests–which can mean a congregation but provided this Mass is not scheduled in accordance with a temporal rule–there is no linguistic restriction whatsoever. Such Masses could have large congregations. For example, an A.U. priest could offer such Masses at the same time every week but not publish any schedule, simply announcing in a bulletin each week that there would be the same Mass at the same time next week. As long as he does not announce a schedule of more than one Mass according to a temporal rule (the definition now settled by the P.C.E.D.), it is a Mass ‘sine populo’ under Articles 2 and 4 of S.P., even if a thousand people happen to attend. Who knows, Norm hiimself might stumble in by accident.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Peter,

      You wrote: On the contrary, because Latin is the sacred language of the Latin Church, every seminary has the duty to train priests to offer Mass in their own lingua sacra…

      Every seminary has a duty to train seminarians to celebrate the liturgy correctly, too, yet many seminaries don’t — which what passes for Sunday mass in many parishes is so deplorable.

      And every seminary has a duty to train seminarians to preach the gospel effectively, too, yet many seminaries don’t — which is why the homilies at Sunday masses in so many parishes are so deplorable.

      And every seminary has a duty to train seminarians in proper exegesis of scripture, too, yet many seminaries don’t — which is why one hears warped distortions of scripture that have no basis in reality.

      So why do you think that training seminarians in Latin is any different?

      I think it much more urgent to fix the defects in liturgical training, homiletics, and scripture than to worry about Latin.

      You wrote: … the defective New Mass.

      That’s heresy. If it were defective, it would be invalid and the magisterium would not have approved it.

      You wrote: But if Msgr. Steenson challenges an A.U. celebrant at an A.U sacred place, a group of faithful may appeal to the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Under Articles 9 to 14 of U.E., the P.C.E.D. may overrule Msgr. Steenson and force him to accept another Latin Mass celebrant for his Ordinariate parish site, including one sent in from, say, the F.S.S.P. That would be fun!

      I would not count on that to happen. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already Msgr. Steenson’s policy.

      That said, the reality is that many of the ordinariate’s congregations are meeting in churches of diocesan parishes, of which the diocesan bishops have given their clergy concurrent appointments as parochial vicars. Thus, if they wish to celebrate mass according to the Tridentine form, they can do it as a mass of the diocesan parish rather than as a mass of the ordinariate congregation.

      But in any case, I don’t hear very many ordinariate clergy saying that they would like to celebrate mass according to the Tridentine form. Thus, your postulating seems to be purely academic in any case.

      You wrote: … offering the T.L.M. ‘sine populo’ for invited guests…

      I don’t see any mention of invited guests. Rather, Summorum pontificum says that parishioners who ask to attend may be admitted. No invitation is necessary.

      Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        ‘Norm’:

        I learned as a child that two wrongs don’t make a right. The fact that our seminaries are a joke is beside the point. That’s my answer to your first reply.

        On your second point, no, it is not heresy to claim that the New Mass is defective. Defects can come in many forms. The indefectability of the Church does not mean that the Church cannot approve liturgies which include errors or deficiencies, only that the Church does not pronounce heresy in her promulgated liturgies. I do not allege heresy in the New Mass. I do allege serious deficiency which suggests heresy and is open to heretical interpretation. The Church has a sacred duty not only to proclaim the truth but to do so unambiguously so that souls not be led astray: salus animarum lex suprema est. I add that even by the deficient standards of Vatican II, the New Mass departs from what the fathers recommended. This is clearly provable by example. Shall we examine particular cases? Let’s start with Articles 23 and 116 of S.C. I would also like to know the origin, for example of the N.O. Offertory Prayers and the precedent for instantly substituting a novelty that does not mention the propitiatory Sacrifice but has a Protestant tone for a form hallowed by over five centuries of use. Liturgy is not concocted in committee in the Catholic Church even when such creations happen to be harmless in se. There is the principle of organic growth.

        Then ‘Norm’ (who is he?) writes this:

        “But in any case, I don’t hear very many ordinariate clergy saying that they would like to celebrate mass according to the Tridentine form. Thus, your postulating seems to be purely academic in any case.”

        Oh, well, actually, I know of quite a number of Ordinariate priests who want to offer the T.L.M. I can also think of one who specifically wants to offer the T.L.M. at an Ordinariate sacred place. No, I will not name him but he is a Canadian. I can also think of an American one who was told to stop. Now he gets in his car and does his T.L.M. at a non-Ordinariate church. This is all so petty of Msgr. Steenson. There is no need for his policy which has NOT been ‘approved’ by the C.D.F. In the U.S.A., there is only one diocese which has an Ordinariate priest in its territory but no every-Su. Latin Mass. As it happens, that Ordinariate priest (Archdiocese of Mobile) does not want to celebrate the T.L.M. anyway. So against whom is Msgr. Steenson’s policy directed? Does it really cause him sleepless nights if one of his priests wants to add a T.L.M. to the Ordinariate parish schedule at 2.00 p.m. on Sundays? Why would he care? He wouldn’t, Norm. It’s Cardinal Wuerl and the American Conference of Bishops who care. The old liberals still controlling that body are still trying to stick the knife into Latin traditionalists, and some of them have the bad taste and poor manners to afflict the new Ordinariate people with this issue. I know about these people. I’ve had direct experience dealing with them. The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. . . .

        P.K.T.P.

        P.S. On your last point, I was referring to wording used in letters from the P.C.E.D. There is an ecclesiastical law somewhere (not in the Code). It’s a comment on Canon 906. Apparently, if a priest wants to offer Mass solo, he is supposed at least to try to find at least one faithful to participate in the Mass with him–an invited guest. This was not the situation prior to the Council and, of course, it was common before the 1960s for priests to offer ‘private Masses’ solo, even without one server. This is generally disallowed under the New Code.

  18. P.K.T.P. says:

    On the celebration of the venerable Mass of Tradition of the Roman Rite, I would close by claiming that this Mass is properly used by Ordinariate priests at Ordinariate sacred places because it is integral both to the Latin Church and to the Anglican Patrimony. In fact, it can be said that both the Anglican Patrimony and the New Order of Mass are derivatives of the Traditional Latin Mass: both were born out of it. It certainly cannot be said that the Anglican Patrimony was derived out of the revolutionary Rite of Paul VI. The Prayerbook Liturgy of Cranmer was adapted from the Roman Rite of Tradition, both the Roman Use (by then customary in London and in many parts of England) and the Sarum Use (which had spread from the south-west). Cranmer did not take his cues from Fr. Annibale Bugnini, although Bugnini took some from Cranmer! The Traditional Latin Rite is the liturgical root of the Anglican Patrimony. A branch has no point of reference except in its root. Hence it is a fundamental right of Anglican Use priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, and Msgr. Steenson has no bloody business discouraging this in his parishes. Latin is also the lingua sacra of the entire Latin Church, of which the ordinariates are a part. Ordinariate priests are priests of the Roman Rite and of the Latin Church. They therefore have the privilege of celebrating Mass in Latin, regardless of which Missal they use.

    Obviously, Anglican Use priests are first and foremost directed to offer the Mass of their own Patrimony for their own people. That is a given. They are also free to offer the New Mass even at their own sacred places and even though its use of a non-sacral idiom is contrary to spirit of their Patrimony. But they are also free generally to offer the ancient Latin Mass. That is their right, and it is a right emanating from the sacred priesthood in the Roman Rite and not from their bishops. Let us turn to an example. Priests are generally allowed to say three Masses on Sundays under Canon 905 and local or proper law. So a certain Anglican Ordinariate Fr. Goodfellow says his Anglican Use Mass at 10.00 a.m. He offers a New Mass at his Ordinariate church at 5.00 p.m. Then he also decides to offer a Traditional Latin Mass at 2.00 p.m. This is good and proper. It is right. It does no harm but only spiritual good for the living and the dead.. It does good, especially given all those clown and balloon Masses going on here, there and everywhere.

    What we are seeing now are intimidation tactics from liberal NewChurch clerics who wish to control the Ordinariates through their personal ordinaries. Money can be used to exert pressure, since the Ordinariates are incipient organisations and in need of financial assistance. So prelates such as Cardinal Wuerl in Washington and Cardinal Collins in Toronto can do their best to dictate their personal likes and dislikes. Before caving in to such people, Ordinariate priests should ask themselves why they have embarked on this venture in the first place. They should remain what they have always wanted to be, bringing dignity and order and reverence into the Mass. This can be helped by reference to the Latin Mass of immemorial custom. So it should be encouraged by prelates everywhere.

    P.K.T.P.

  19. P.K.T.P. says:

    A few quotations:

    Optatam Totius, 13: “Before beginning specifically ecclesiastical subjects, seminarians should be equipped with that humanistic and scientific training which young men in their own countries are wont to have as a foundation for higher studies. Moreover, they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged.”

    Canon 249: “The Charter of Priestly formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well-versed in Latin. . . . ”

    Canon 928: “The Eucharistic celebration [i.e. Mass] is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided [that] the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved.”

    Universæ Ecclesiæ, Art. 21, “Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to seminaries, where priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin and, where pastoral need suggests it, the opportunity to learn the [Traditional Latin Mass].” (Note that these two ends are separated: they are only to learn the T.L.M. where pastoral need suggests it, but they are to learn Latin as part of their proper formation, even if they do not intend to offer the T.L.M.)

    Article 32: “Article 9, Section 3 of the motu proprio ‘Summorum Pontificum’ gives clerics the faculty to use the Breviarium Romanum in effect in 1962, which is to be prayed entirely [e.g. including Lauds] and in the Latin language.”

    Summorum Pontificumm, Art. 1: The Traditional Latin Mass “must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage”. Note that this is not a recommendation. To whom is this command directed? It is directed to the addresses. And who might they be? They are the local and proper residential bishops and other prelates, including personal ordinaries (cf. Canon 368). Note that this prescription is not expressed as an option but as a general norm requiring obedience. Now one cannot give something due honour by discouraging it or saying that it is not proper for use in a diocese or its equivalent.

    What concerns and motivates me here is less a matter of protecting lay faithful and more one of respecting the right of a priest in his own spirituality. However, this does extend to the laity because Mass by its very nature, according, ironically, to Vatican II and the new Code of Canons of 1983, is public (cf. Canon 837, Sect. 1 and 899, Sect. 2). It strikes me as just uncharitable for any ordinary to try to discourage a legitimate rite of Holy Church in his superscription. The Mass is not about the power of the prelate. Pope Francis might say that prelates should be pastors rather than princes. Msgr. Steenson would be right to ensure that his priests are primarily meeting the needs of the Anglican Use people but additional offerings of Latin Masses (as New Masses) does not contradict this; no, it enriches it.

    The last motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI was his encyclical Latina Lingua. Now I have long argued amongst traditionalists that the Anglican Use enriches the Holy Catholic Church. Some Latin traditionalists don’t agree and don’t want to hear this. Now we have an assault on the Latin liturgical tradition which is the root of the entire Rite and of the Latin Church. The assault on Latin Tradition in the Catholic Church emanates from one of the new prelates who has entered the Church from without. This sort of thing tears at the heart of the Church. Msgr. Steenson should be man enough to admit that he’s made a mistake and then correct it.

    P.K.T.P.

    • EPMS says:

      On a completely different tack, it is difficult to imagine that the septuagenarian Victoria clergy, who have ministered for many decades to the kind of Canadian Anglican who believes that the BCP contains all things necessary for salvation, will suddenly feel called to throw themselves into the TLM, even if the man in Houston does a complete 180. This is not their world.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        I suggest that you are mistaken but I will not identify individual priests in this matter. But you may find out quite dramatically that you are wrong. I also know of Ordinariate priests from across Canada who want to offer the T.L.M., usually on an occasional basis. At least one wants to do it every Sunday.

        P.K.T.P.

      • EPMS says:

        Mr. Perkins, regarding your statement about Ordinariate priests across Canada who want to offer the TLM, one might point out that there are only 7 Ordinariate priests, in 3 cities, and none east of Ottawa, so “across Canada” is a stretch. I know that Mr LePage once described a weekly TLM as one of his goals, but he has not yet been ordained. The latest newsletter from Victoria does say that two of the newly ordained men will be offering NO masses locally.

  20. EPMS says:

    I am sure that everything Mr Perkins has to say on the legalities of the situation is absolutely accurate. The point remains that the Ordinary has other ideas. Should clergy not do as they are told? If the Ordinary is such a hopeless liberal that his wishes can be ignored, where does this leave the Ordinariate?

    • Ioannes says:

      I’d follow Fr. Z’s advice for seminarians but this remains relevant for clergy in the Ordinariates: “Keep your mouths shut. Go silent and go deep. Get ordained.

      1.Rarely affirm.
      2.Never deny.
      3.Seldom make distinctions.
      4.Smile a lot.
      5.Say very little.
      6.Never wear black.

      Get ordained.

      There will be time after ordination to learn the TLM and build up that dimension of the formation they are – contrary to the Church’s law – cheating you out of.

      For the sake of that day, be quiet and make sacrifices.

      Do not, by fighting or reacting suddenly, give those… aging-hippy modernists anything to beat you with. Once you are ordained, with a joyful smile and in charity destroy their life’s work.”

      If you’re a celibate seminarian for an Ordinariate, play the toady and become bishop. Then, upon becoming the bishop, do the right thing and crush the work of the enemy.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: I’d follow Fr. Z’s advice for seminarians but this remains relevant for clergy in the Ordinariates: “Keep your mouths shut. Go silent and go deep. Get ordained.

        1.Rarely affirm.
        2.Never deny.
        3.Seldom make distinctions.
        4.Smile a lot.
        5.Say very little.
        6.Never wear black.

        Get ordained.

        There will be time after ordination to learn the TLM and build up that dimension of the formation they are – contrary to the Church’s law – cheating you out of.

        Perhaps these statements reflect a miscomprehension of the structure of the program of formation for former Anglican clergy who are coming into the ordinariates with their congregations.

        Most former Anglican clergy who have come into the Catholic Church in the past have completed about two years of supplemental formation before their ordinations as Catholic deacons and presbyters. For those coming into the ordinariates, however, the Vatican recognized that this was not satisfactory. Rather, it was clearly necessary to see to their Catholic ordinations as quickly as possible so they could resume their roles as sacramental ministers for the congregations that came with them.

        In view of this consideration, the Vatican approved restructuring the formation process for former Anglican clergy seeking ordination in the Catholic Church to provide the bare essentials as quickly as possible, permitting their Catholic ordinations, with the rest of the program formation occurring after their Catholic ordination. Obviously, the preponderance of those who have been ordained are completing the program of formation while ministering to their ordinariate communities and, in many cases, concurrently ministering in the dioceses within which their ordinariate communities happen to be. As a result, it will take most of the incoming clergy two to three years after their Catholic ordinations to complete the whole of the ordinariate’s program of formation for Catholic ministry.

        The ordinariate’s program of formation obviously does not include training to celebrate the Tridentine form of the liturgy, as training in that form is not essential for ministry to an ordinariate community. Nevertheless, it is wrong to call this a “deprivation” — it is not part of normal formation for diocesan ministry, either. Rather, excepting religious institutes like the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP) who celebrate it habitually and thus include it in their formation, it is separate training that a cleric may elect to pursue on his own initiative.

        The reality is that most clergy of the ordinariates probably will not have time to consider this training until they complete the whole of the ordinariate’s program of formation for Catholic ministry, which needs to be their priority right now. You might move into a house before you finish construction, but you generally finish construction of the original structure before commencing construction of an addition.

        Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        Well, that’s good! I’m alright with this.

  21. P.K.T.P. says:

    Dear Norm:

    I have found that one of my quotations is actually a mistranslation from the Latin. In the Latin text, my point is much firmer. This is why we should not trust the ‘official’ English translations. I refer to Article 21 of Universæ Ecclesiæ. The eminent Fr. John Hunwicke of the English Ordinariate points out that the Latin says more than the official English translation, something i would have realised had I reviewed the original text before quoting these translations. The key to watch for is that slippery ambiguous ‘should’. Providebatur is clearly the future tense of the indicative mood. So there is no ‘should’ here: it means that “Seminaries, in which it will be provided that future priests are given proper formation by learning Latin and, where need suggests it, by learning the extraordinary form itself. In other words, it requires that, in future, seminarists be taught Latin, thereby corresponding completely with Canon 249 and Optatam Totius 13. Case closed!

    So, if some local or proper ordinary finds that, after a challenge to one of his priests, that priest is not well-enough versed in Latin to understand the meaning of the prayers of the Ordinary, the priest in question might very well demand re-training at the expense of the Diocese.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Ioannes says:

      These are really subjects of top-level scholarship that local clergy where I live… probably don’t care much for. To be charitable, they’re probably too busy running charitable causes, and so forth. Because that’s why they are priests, I guess? Do bishops even look at blogs like this and say: “Oh, ‘seminarians ought to be taught Latin, thereby corresponding completely with Canon 249 and Optatam Totius 13’ that’s such a brilliant idea! Let’s do that!”?

      How I wish we have a Fr. Hunwicke in Los Angeles. Then again, I wouldn’t want him to be abused and corrupted and assimilated by the culture here. God will send him where he is needed, and God will send us who we need, I suppose. We don’t need a bishop pandering to immigrant communities by talking about immigration policies of a nation as if that takes precedence over the salvation of souls. We save souls through Jesus Christ, not immigration reform.

      (How is Fr. Hunwicke, I wonder- is he well from that accident he had?)

  22. EPMS says:

    Norm: What is the source of your information regarding ongoing training? My observation is that there is no set policy in place; for example, some who completed the first run of the distance learning course are still unordained, while the three priests in Victoria were ordained before they had completed the current course, and others were ordained without participating in either session. The distance courses have been beset with technical problems, and it is unlikely that any candidate has been fortunate enough to participate in the entire program. I am sure that all these men are commited to ongoing learning but I do not think any formal structure exists.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You asked: What is the source of your information regarding ongoing training?

      IIRC, the general plan for Catholic formation of Anglican clergy coming into the ordinariates was first stated publicly in the announcement of plans for reception of the first wave of communities of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. Subsequent additional public statements generally have confirmed this — about four to six months of formation, ordination, then two more years of formation — in both the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.

      You said: My observation is that there is no set policy in place; for example, some who completed the first run of the distance learning course are still unordained, while the three priests in Victoria were ordained before they had completed the current course, and others were ordained without participating in either session.

      I don’t know how you can know any of this, but I also know that there are many factors that affect the exact timing of ordinations — not the least of which are the schedules of the respective ordaining bishops and the respective ordinaries or those who might represent them at an ordination. Also, since most of the program of formation is done by distance learning here in North America, it’s very likely that much of it is self-paced and that candidates who are already more knowledgeable about certain areas or who are less burdened by other responsibilities might complete them more quickly than other candidates who have less starting knowledge and more burdensome responsibilities.

      You wrote: The distance courses have been beset with technical problems…

      I don’t see how you can know this — but if there are technical problems, that would only delay the completion of the program for the affected candidates.

      You wrote: … but I do not think any formal structure exists.

      Have you not been paying attention?

      Both Msgr. Newton and Msgr. Steenson have stated publicly that ordinariate clergy will complete two additional years of formation via distance learning after their Catholic ordinations.

      Norm.

      • EPMS says:

        Distance learning component consists of weekly lectures shared by a sort of group Skype, followed up with written assignments, so it is not self-paced.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        EPMS,

        You wrote: Distance learning component consists of weekly lectures shared by a sort of group Skype, followed up with written assignments, so it is not self-paced.

        Not necessarily. “Distance learning” is a fairly broad categorical term that also encompasses interactive and correspondence courses. Also, in many “distance learning” programs, the lectures are pre-recorded and loaded on a server so that students can view them via Internet on their own schedule rather than at preset times.

        In this program, my sense is that the seminars tend to be more for spiritual formation and mutual support than actual classroom. The British ordinariate specifically described a very extensive “reading programme” after ordination that would be largely self-paced.

        Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        ‘Norm’:

        I’d like to suggest to you that the attitude of the local bishops and not just their schedules has much to do with the timing of ordinations. Heaven forbid that one should suggest that, well, some Roman bishops are not all that friendly to the Ordinariates. You seem to me to be blind to the fact that some Canadian bishops, in particular, are leftist radicals. Among the T.L.M. people here in Victoria, we have a name for our bishops collectively, but I’d better not repeat it. To be fair, we also have some excellent bishops.

        It has long fascinated me how there seems to be an inverse ratio between those who chatter all day about charity and those who practice it. The more a liberal (including an episcopal one) smiles broadly all day long and chatters about charity, the less charitable he tends to be. I recall that, when I first became involved in the traditionalist movement (from the N.O.), I had this inane and naive belief that traditionalists and liberals could all be friends: live and let live was my motto then. What drove me to liturgical extremes was, to some extent, the outright hatred I could `discern`among liberals towards those who were attached to the Latin Mass. They love to talk about charity and they are nice to everyone but trads. They hate trads. I don`t mean `dislike`. I refer to the sin of hatred. I was shocked when I first noticed this. This was not merely a disagreement. It was vitriolic. That`s when I started asking myself why they felt this way about the beautiful and grand and reverent Mass of the Ages. Why did they despise that and recommend the banal and, frankly, silly Masses of the New Order. I also learned that there`s no liberal more hateful than an old one. It`s the old liberals who are most incensed about the T.L.M. The young people are open to it. Openness, now there`s a concept for us! Liberals preach openness but they only favour it in regard to those whom they happen to like.

        I`m hoping that, once the 1960s generation dies off, there can be a return to a more charitable Church. How can the T.L.M. be a threat to the New Mass? We are less than one per cent of one per cent of the faithful. The old Mass is not a threat to the New one. The only threat to the New Mass is . . . the New Mass itself. And that is starting to become more and more apparent as the decline widens and deepens.

        P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Peter,

        You wrote: Heaven forbid that one should suggest that, well, some Roman bishops are not all that friendly to the Ordinariates.

        There certainly may be some bishops of the Roman Rite who are hostile to the ordinariates, but let’s not assume such an attitude to be the only reason why a bishop might recommend against the acceptance of an Anglican cleric as a candidate for ordination in the Catholic Church. There are many clergy of both The Episcopal Church (TEC) here in the States and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) on your side of the border who would not be suitable candidates. The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter is best served by negative recommendations in such cases.

        You wrote: You seem to me to be blind to the fact that some Canadian bishops, in particular, are leftist radicals.

        Actually, I’m acutely aware of this fact. I saw it first-hand while stationed aboard USS Long Beach (CGN-9), a nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser, during two years of complex overhaul in Bremerton, Washington, while Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen was Archbishop of Seattle. He was so extreme that the Vatican actually appointed an auxiliary with special powers, and subsequently a coadjutor, to check his abuses.

        That said, my impression is that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI succeeded in replacing nearly all of them with bishops who are more orthodox. I have heard more than a little wailing and gnashing of teeth from the extreme left over many of those appointments.

        You wrote: It has long fascinated me how there seems to be an inverse ratio between those who chatter all day about charity and those who practice it. The more a liberal (including an episcopal one) smiles broadly all day long and chatters about charity, the less charitable he tends to be.

        Yes, but that is true on both sides of the fence, and it’s equally true of those who preach tolerance. Hypocrisy looms large.

        You wrote: What drove me to liturgical extremes was, to some extent, the outright hatred I could `discern`among liberals towards those who were attached to the Latin Mass. They love to talk about charity and they are nice to everyone but trads. They hate trads. I don`t mean `dislike`. I refer to the sin of hatred. I was shocked when I first noticed this. This was not merely a disagreement. It was vitriolic.

        Yes, I have seen this — and indeed, this sort of hatred is clearly demonic because it causes division in the Body of Christ.

        But I have also experienced the same sort of hatred from radical traditionalists who despise the proper celebration of the current ordinary form of the mass. It’s just as wrong, regardless of which side exhibits it.

        A priest friend is very fond of reminding people that we all tend to become what we despise in others. When something rankles our feathers, we really need to take a good look in a mirror because we probably are doing exactly the same thing in the opposite direction.

        You wrote: …the beautiful and grand and reverent Mass of the Ages.

        If you were to experience the manner in which the Tridentine mass was celebrated in most parishes when I was a lad, I doubt that you would describe it as “beautiful” or “grand” or “reverent” because I cannot say that any of those adjectives fit. Rather, the attitude that pervaded many rectories was to celebrate the mass as quickly as possible so that the parishioners could go their way and get on with their other plans for the day. In my parish, we had one priest whose Sunday masses actually took seventeen (17) minutes on hot summer days when the heat slowed him down, but sixteen (16) minutes was his norm — and that included distribution of communion to a congregation of several hundred parishioners. The other priests were somewhat slower, but typically under twenty (20) minutes. I doubt that your celebrations of the Tridentine mass today are so hasty.

        You wrote: It`s the old liberals who are most incensed about the T.L.M. The young people are open to it. Openness, now there`s a concept for us!

        It’s not particularly surprising that those who have no memory of the Tridentine mass would be more open to it than those who have extreme negative memories of it.

        When I was a lad, many parishes had special masses for children of school age right before their “Confraternity of Christian Doctrine” (“CCD”) classes, where the sisters who taught the CCD classes supervised the children because the parents were not welcomed to that mass (there was often another mass at the same time for the parents). Many of the sisters were stern disciplinarians who would crack a whip at any child whose posture lapsed, leaving children dreading punishment if they so much as flinched. This stern discipline bordering on abuse did not exactly enhance the memories of the Tridentine mass for the majority of “cradle Catholic” adults of my generation and older, in case the manner of celebration that I described previously was not bad enough.

        You wrote: How can the T.L.M. be a threat to the New Mass? We are less than one per cent of one per cent of the faithful. The old Mass is not a threat to the New one.

        Yes, I agree with you on this. I generally favor making the Tridentine mass available to those who wish it, and even the erection of personal parishes or chaplaincies for the Tridentine use where there are sufficient numbers to support it.

        That said, I do think you owe it to any pastor or bishop who turns down a request for a Tridentine mass to inquire as to why. Perhaps there is a legitimate difficulty in fulfilling it, and perhaps the people who made the request were less than respectful toward the pastor or bishop or were less than reasonable in their demands.

        You wrote: The only threat to the New Mass is . . . the New Mass itself. And that is starting to become more and more apparent as the decline widens and deepens.

        I rather think that the problem is not the current ordinary form of the mass, but rather the clueless clergy who don’t know how to celebrate mass properly. In many cases, the miracle is that the exodus and decline was not both quicker and deeper.

        That said, this phenomenon is far from uniform. There are some dioceses that have trained their clergy very well, and thus where the celebration of Sunday mass according to the present ordinary form is a wonderful experience. Many of those dioceses are experiencing significant growth and are building new parishes or larger facilities to accommodate the greater numbers.

        Norm.

  23. I can remember when I was a English Benedictine noviciate (in my 20’s) for a few years, we had a priest and teacher who was a “liturgist” scholar (of course this was in the 70’s). Those days were the days and winds of change, but again Vatican II has never been closely theologically defined, since! And now, who defines the Ordinariates? Not pope “Francis” that’s for sure!

  24. EPMS says:

    Norm: I meant the distance learning component currently in use out of Houston. Of course there are many possible models, but they are using an interactive system described in some detail in Mary Ann Mueller’s article on Virtueonline about the original formation class.

  25. P.K.T.P. says:

    Norm, it sounds to me as if the formation programme for the Ordinariates is therefore defective, as it falls short of the law in Optatam Totius 13 and Canons 249 and 248. Of course, I won’t be lodging a complaint, since I want to see these men ordained and since most seminaries are deficient in this regard. In fact, I’d wager that the men from the TAC, at least, know considerably more about the Catholic Faith than most of the chaps who have been churned out of our seminaries since the 1960s.

    P.K.T.P.

  26. P.K.T.P. says:

    Further to IrishAnglican’s comments:

    I’ve heard today that a certain fellow traditionalist at the church shown here has tried to insert new statutes into the niches in the reredos. He even took a tape measure with him! Do I support this? Not so fast. No, we need to make other changes first and should prudently wait before obtaining the extra statues. The plan is to buy statues of the four evangelists for the four niches. Then we’d have a grand total of twelve statues in our sanctuary, plus one at its entrance on the south side (St. Joseph), one in a reliquary case (Infant of Prague) and one poor St. Patrick in the back corner. That’s fifteen statues in all, not including the very large crucifix on the east wall, which is about the number that would make me feel comfortable. We also now have a kneeler before one of the statues, which is excellent indeed.

    In the case of a certain other Parish in this Diocese of Victoria, the former Bishop went in and ordered most of the statues removed. Shortly thereafter, the Priest there left from warmer climes in South America. The sanctuary you see in this photograph is the only Catholic sanctuary in the City of Victoria that has retained a traditional Catholic appearance. The others all look about as Protestant as your average United Church stage space. There is another exception, of course: the new Ordinariate people have Altar rails and statues now. One more reason to love them.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Aye, indeed, “statutes” in Judeo-Christian worship are a blatant disregard for the Biblical text, in the Ten Commandments… noting Exodus 20: 4-5 / Deut.5: 8-9! And indeed in the NT idolatry is raised to a high spiritual standard… “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.” (1 John 5: 21) Of course here is the highest human idol, the human heart!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s