Rorate Caeli

Castrillón speaks to 30 Giorni


30 Giorni (30 Days) has a very interesting interview (Italian) with Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", regarding the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum - though his answers are substantially similar to the ones in the interview granted to Il Giornale and translated here. The current (June 2007) issue of 30 Days will be made available in English in a few weeks.

His wonderful first answer sets the tone of the interview:

Your Eminence, what is the sense of the motu proprio which liberalizes the use of the Missal said of Saint Pius V?

DARÍO CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: When, after the Second Vatican Council, there were changes in the liturgy, consistent groups of lay faithful and even of clerics felt confused because they were strongly attached to the liturgy in force for centuries.I think about the priests who for fifty years has celebrated that Mass said of Saint Pius V and that all of a sudden found themselves forced to celebrate another one, I think about the faithful, for generations accustomed to that rite, I also think about the children such as the altar boys who all of a sudden found themselves overwhelmed about serving Mass with the Novus Ordo.

It was then a confusion in several levels. For some, it was even of a theological nature, believing that the ancient rite expressed the sense of sacrifice better than the one introduced. Others, even for cultural reasons, remembered with nostalgia the Gregorian [chant] and the great polyphonies which were a richness of the Latin Church.

Making it all worse was the fact that those who experienced this confusion blamed the Council for these changes, when in truth the Council itself had neither asked for nor predicted the details of these changes. The Mass celebrated by the Conciliar Fathers was the Mass of Saint Pius V. The Council had not asked for the creation of a new rite, but for a wider use of the vernacular language and for a greater participation of the faithful.

Other excerpts:

[...]
...and the second [mistake of those who oppose the motu proprio]?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: That it is about reducing the episcopal power. But that is not so. The Pope has not changed the Code of Canon Law. The bishop is the moderator of the liturgy in his own diocese. But the Apostolic See has the competence to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church. And a bishop must act in harmony with the Apostolic See and must guarantee to each faithful his own rights, including the one to be able to participate in the Mass of Saint Pius V, as an extraordinary form of the rite.

[...]

The motu proprio does not set a minimal number of faithful needed for the request to celebrate the Mass of Saint Pius V. Yet, in the past, the news was leaked that a minimum number of thirty faithful was considered...

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: That is the clear evidence as to how, regarding this motu proprio, pseudo-news[reports] were spread out by those who had not read the drafts or by those who, in an interested manner, wished to influence its elaboration. I have followed the entire iter which has led to the final text and, as I recall, no minimum limit of faithful ever appeared in any draft, not of thirty, not of twenty, not of a hundred.

[...]

In the aftermath of this meeting [on June 27, with Bishops chosen to know the text of the motu proprio], what were the variations [introduced] to the text of the motu proprio which had been prepared?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Some small lexical variations were requested and thus introduced, nothing else.

34 comments:

Jeff said...

True that the Council didn't envision a New Rite and certainly not the Novus Ordo that we got. The New Rite is so substantially different from the old that it is more than just a revision. If that conclusion is not conceded, there is no ground for the Pope's determination that the Old Mass had not been abrogated. Mere revisions don't need solemn clear abrogations. Only if the revisions are so substantial as to amount to something new would abrogation be required.

But the Council did ask for greater Scriptural riches at Mass and for a revision so that unnecessary things be pared away and the essentials be clearly seen. One has to assume from a text like that that there are things worth paring away, or at least the document the Fathers adopted says that there are. The implication was that a major revision--though truly a REVISION--was called for.

If it wasn't asking for 1970, neither was it asking for 1962. Probably something more like 1965 or 1968.

Don't get me wrong; I'm perfectly happy with 1962.

dcs said...

I think one is free to believe that the Council's wishes with respect to the Mass were misguided. It does not seem that Divine protection extends to the prudential judgments of the Council Fathers.

Anonymous said...

What does the term "extraordinary" imply?

Max Trilby said...

Interesting that the cardinal refers at one point to the Masses as different 'rites' - a distinction the pope himself was too timorous to make.

This notion that there are two "forms" of the same rite is completely unprecidented in liturgical history and makes little sense.

It would seem the pope invented the term out of thin air to avoid theological squabbling. Of course, no one has the obligation to use it, and nor should they, unless merely in jest.

The new mass is 70% different to the old. If that doesn't make it a different rite (or at least a different 'use'), then we may as well refer to the oriental rites as mere "forms" of the same rite too, since they have arguably more commonality.

Macarius said...

There are various forms of the Byzantine rite: that of St. John Chrystostom, that of St. Basil, and that of St. Mark. Three "forms", one rite. It is a very ancient precedent.

Anonymous said...

The release of the Pope's Motu Proprio on the TLM is great news, but my experience last weekend showed how far we have to go in restoring the Church.

I visited relatives in Portland, Oregon, and had to attend a Novus Ordo Mass with my aunt and other parishioners at her church who are in "full communion with Rome." This Mass was an abomination! The "faithful" talked and laughed right up until the start of the service (hey, why do they have that fancy box up there with a little candle beside it?). The priest devoted his homily to lecturing us on the "advantages" of using vernacular languages in the liturgy. The "choir" consisted of a guy on a drum set and two girls with flutes. All they played was Protestant-style "praise" music (taste and see, taste and see, taste and...). There were numerous lay people (mostly female) wandering around the altar throughout the Mass. "Extraordinary" Eucharistic ministers went out into the crowd distributing Communion (no need to humbly approach the altar to receive Our Lord, we'll bring the "Eucharistic Meal" to you!). It went on and on.

After this experience, I'm so glad to be home so that I can attend Mass at my "schismatic" SSPX chapel with other fellow Catholics who are not in "full communion with Rome!"

Jordan Potter said...

Max said: This notion that there are two "forms" of the same rite is completely unprecidented in liturgical history and makes little sense.

Macarius has already informed you of the different forms of the Byzantine Rite. Please try and inform yourself before making such pronouncement.

It would seem the pope invented the term out of thin air to avoid theological squabbling. Of course, no one has the obligation to use it, and nor should they, unless merely in jest.

On the contrary, the classification of the 1962 Missal as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and the 1969 Missal as the ordinary form is now the established liturgical law of the Church, have been determined by the Chief Legislator of the Church. If you wish to speak accurately about these matters, then it is mandatory that one not use the terms only in jest.

After this experience, I'm so glad to be home so that I can attend [an illicit and unauthorised] Mass at my "schismatic" SSPX chapel with other fellow Catholics who are not in "full communion with Rome!"

Two wrongs don't make a right, Anon.

Anonymous said...

Jordan,

Okay, but I think I'll error on the side of the SSPX. I like my chances a little better!

dcs said...

Macarius has already informed you of the different forms of the Byzantine Rite.
There are different recensions of the Byzantine Rite, but in general the Byzantine Rite is understood to refer to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with occasional (determined by the Calendar) celebrations of the Liturgy of St. Basil, the Liturgy of St. James, and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. It would not be correct to call the Liturgy of St. James a "use" of the Byzantine Rite; a Church who used that Liturgy all the time would be Antiochian and not Byzantine. Likewise, the Liturgy of St. Mark, which is not in use at all in the Churches who use the Byzantine Rite, would be Alexandrian.

Jordan Potter said...

Likewise, the Liturgy of St. Mark, which is not in use at all in the Churches who use the Byzantine Rite, would be Alexandrian.

Thanks for the clarification . . . but your comments still establish the antiquity of the precedent for the Pope's decision which Max Trilby would like everyone to mock. (Also, I don't think anyone said the Liturgy of St. James was a "use" of the Byzantine Rite, but a "form.")

Imagine, Pope Benedict XVI actually knowing rather more about the liturgy than your average Catholic! Inconthievable!

Max Trilby said...

There are various forms of the Byzantine rite: that of St. John Chrystostom, that of St. Basil, and that of St. Mark. Three "forms", one rite. It is a very ancient precedent.

The correct term is “use”. A RITE is a unique Liturgical tradition with its own distinct Order of Mass, Calendar, Lectionary, chants, etc. A USE is a local variation or sub group of a rite where secondary elements vary but the core elements remain the same. Thus, in the Byzantine RITE there are many USES: Greek, Ukrainian, Russian, Melkite, Serbian, Romanian etc. Each has its own proper chant melodies, calendar and minor variations in the rubrics while all retain the same core of rubrics, prayers, readings and texts for chants. Examples of USES of the Roman Rite would include those of the ancient religious Orders (Carthusian, Cistercian, Norbertine, Dominican, Carmelite) and of regions (The Sarum Use in Britain and Ireland, Braga in Portugal). Unfortunately this distinction between RITE and USE is rarely followed in common speech or even in official documents and scholarly works. SP continues that tradition.

Let’s not use the wording of our enemies to describe our own Mass. It is the Traditional Latin Mass. More specifically, it is the 1962 Order of Mass or the 1962 Mass in Latin. The traditional and new Masses are not two forms of the same Rite of Mass; they are two Rites of Mass. Benedict has been wrong in the past (e.g. during the 1960s); in his own words, he is “not an oracle”. This is not a matter of faith or morals to any extent and we can simply affirm that the Pope is totally wrong about it.

Anonymous said...

The MP in saying that that NO and the TLM are two forms of the same rite (the document elsewhere uses the latin for "uses") establishes no doctrinal or magisterial requirement that one conform his judgment to this usage of terms, because it obliges no one to accept the definition of the relationship between the two in these terms, otherwise, there would be an Anathema Sit or an explicit statement of required obligation to assent.

As a legal document the MP regards the liturgical arraingments in the Latin Rite, it is not a universally applicable law, as obviously it in no way touches the Easter Rites (excuse me all your pc catholics out there, if I still use the traditional term here).

As Pope the Holy Father is supreme legislator and teacher; but unless he says he is teaching, then in a legal document one does not presume that an assent of mind is required to the terms he uses. The pope can call the 2 eggs or apples, or rites, or usages, that does not change anything, because it is a question of law not of doctrine.

For those who say that you cannot separate the two, I cite these examples: A pagan church can write the Vatican to obtain a papal blessing; if the Pope grants them a blessing, that in no way means that he is approving of their religion (charity requires that we assumed that he is praying for their conversion); this is a priestly act of the pope, not a magisterial one. Likewise, the pope can make his brother a duke, but that does not mean that we are obliged to hold that his brother is of a noble lineage, only that the Pope has such authority as Head of State of the Vatican. Neither of these are magisterial acts, though the latter is a legal act.

Thus, since each and every prescription of the MP is a law unto itself, the validity of one law or its use of terms requires nothing more than what it prescribes.

The determination of the Pope to name each 2 forms or 2 usages, charitably speaking, must be held to be a diplomatic comprimise to ensure that the Bishops respect the rights granted elsehwere. It does not require more than that.

As for the theological soundness of the NO: the statement of the Holy Father does not address that in the MP; nor does his opinion in the accompanying letter establish any obligation upon Catholics.

Clearly in the Pope's mind if both signify the same faith, then both are catholic; therefore, it remains to prove the fact whether they do this or not. With it proven that the NO does not, then obviously, charitably speaking, one must presume the Apostolic See would rightly reject it.

Papabile said...

Look, the Holy Father called the extraordinary form and the ordinary form usages. It's right in Art. 1 of Summorum Pontificum.

It would be proper to call it an extraordinary usage and an ordinary usage.

"...sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani."

[Unofficial translation of SP... note the unofficial translation establishes it as an independent sentence and not integral to the last sentence.]

"They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite."

dcs said...

If one defines a "Rite" as Mr. Trilby has then there is no doubt that the traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo are two different "Rites". Not only the form of the Mass, but the Calendar, Divine Office, and the forms of all the Sacraments are different. However, defining a "Rite" in such a way may be technically correct, but it presents problems. For example, how can we say that one who is ordained in the Novus Ordo Rite (or Modern Roman Rite, if you prefer) has a right to celebrate Mass according to the traditional Roman Rite? Without being "bi-ritual," that is? So, even if they are not technically one Rite, juridically they clearly are. Therefore calling them "usages" of the one Roman Rite is (a) juridically correct and (b) isn't using the wording of our enemies -- because those same enemies would tell us that the Mass of St. Pius V was "abrogated" and that Roman Rite priests and faithful do not have a right to it. Establishing that the TLM is a "use" (or "form") of the Roman Rite allows the Pope to declare that priests and faithful of the Roman Rite have a right to it.

dcs said...

I should add: "Without prejudice to those who might prefer the Novus Ordo or 'ordinary form' of the Roman Rite."

Jordan Potter said...

First, thanks for the correction on "use" vs. "form." So the official position and law of the Catholic Church is that the 1962 Missal is an extraordinary "use" of the Roman Rite, and not a separate rite as Max Trilby erroneously insists.

Let’s not use the wording of our enemies to describe our own Mass.

The Pope is not the enemy, he's the supreme legislator of the Church, and he has established motu proprio that the 1962 Missal is an extraordinary use of the Roman Rite.

The traditional and new Masses are not two forms of the same Rite of Mass; they are two Rites of Mass.

In your personal opinion, but the liturgical law is that they are two uses of the one Roman Rite.

Benedict has been wrong in the past (e.g. during the 1960s); in his own words, he is “not an oracle”.

Whether he's wrong or not, his word in this matter is law, and those who would like to see more of the 1962 Mass are obligated to work within the laws of the Church.

This is not a matter of faith or morals to any extent and we can simply affirm that the Pope is totally wrong about it.

Well we can do anything we want, but that doesn't mean we're right.

As Pope the Holy Father is supreme legislator and teacher; but unless he says he is teaching, then in a legal document one does not presume that an assent of mind is required to the terms he uses.

However, if one wishes to be accurate about saying what the law of the Church is, then one should use the terms that the Church uses. Saying that they are two separate rites is inaccurate, because in law they are not two separate rites. (And in origin the Pauline Missal is a massive revision, and in my opinion and the opinion of a lot of people, a botched revision of the Roman Rite. It's not a revision of the Byzantine Rite or Maronite Rite or Chaldean Rite.)

Jordan Potter said...

Establishing that the TLM is a "use" (or "form") of the Roman Rite allows the Pope to declare that priests and faithful of the Roman Rite have a right to it.

But if Max Trilby is correct, then no Latin Rite priest has any right to the TLM, because Church law requires Latine Rite priests to use the Pauline Missal and to obtain special permission to use the liturgies of other rights. By insisting that the Pauline Missal and the Johannine Missal are separate rites, Max would make it all but impossible for priests of the Roman Rite to use the Johannine Missal.

Yes, I prefer the Pope's solution to the problem to Max's insistence that the problem remain indefinitely (though what he probably prefers is the suppression of the Pauline Missal and the re-introduction of the pre-Vatican II Mass, something that could not happen without grievous injury to the Church).

Clemens Maria said...

At the risk of interrupting the debate on the difference between a "use", a "form", and a "rite", I'd like to call attention to the recent statement released by the Archdiocese of Boston in which Cardinal O'Malley makes it clear that he will forbid the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. I believe that despite his carefully crafted image of being a humble friar, he is in fact a very determined foe of the Holy Father and of SP in particular. He has shown a shocking disregard for canon law in his massive effort to shutdown churches and now he once again grasps at power which he does not lawfully possess. I hope Cardinal Castrillon will put him back in his place.

Anonymous said...

What if Jordan Potter's statement is reworded thus:

"But if Max Trilby is correct, then no Latin Rite priest has any right to the NOVUS ORDO, because Church law requires Latine Rite priests to use the PIUS V Missal and to obtain special permission to use the liturgies of other rights.[sic] By insisting that the Pauline Missal and the Johannine Missal are separate rites, Max would make it all but impossible for priests of the Roman Rite to use the PAULINE Missal."

I invision that for down the road, after a good, long, long while.

dcs said...

Cardinal O'Malley makes it clear that he will forbid the prayer for the conversion of the Jews.

I think the statement is about as clear as mud. It talks about "elements . . . that are understandably [my emphasis -DCS] objectionable to our Jewish and ecumenical brothers and sisters." I submit that there are no such elements. Some Jews and others might find them "objectionable" but that doesn't make them "understandably" so.

Jordan Potter said...

What if Jordan Potter's statement is reworded thus:

Then my statement wouldn't make any sense (apart from the correct of "rights" to rite" -- and you didn't catch my "Latine" misspelling).

As for "understandable" Jewish objections to Christians praying for their conversion, I think their objections are very understandable -- St. Paul says their is a veil over their eyes when they read the Torah. So I certainly understand why Jews wouldn't like the old Good Friday prayer for the Jews.

Jordan Potter said...

Speaking of misspellings . . . their/there.

Jordan Potter said...

And correct/correction . . . .

This computer keyboard just doesn't know how to spell and doesn't know correct grammar . . .

Anonymous said...

I can understand Cardinal O'Malley's view as the Boston Church and especially the Irish community historically in Boston has had a sad history of bad relations with Jews (including incidents of going into the Jewish community beating up people and calling them "Christkillers" etc) Knowing that history, I'm not surprised the Cardinal does not want the Counter Reformation spirit of the old Collects to be revived.

Jacques said...

Funny how the discussion thread about such an interesting interview devolved. I guess every silver lining has its cloud in some peoples' eyes.

Lomard said...

It is absurd to assert that Card. O'Malley is "a very determined foe of the Holy Father and of SP in particular."

Simon-Peter Vickers-Buckley said...

Excerpt from interview with Cardinal O'Mally, broadcast on NECN, 9th of May 2007:

Reporter: "...Cardinal O'Mally approved the move [from Holy Trinity], he agreed that vatican II never called for total elimination of Latin in the Mass."

His Eminence: "When I was in the seminary, of course, the liturgy was still in Latin, our classes were all in Latin, and -- "

Reporter: " -- do you miss that?"

His Eminence (non responsive?): "Er,I,I...love the Latin...I do, er, and I, I'm very pleased when we have the Latin music that people sing at some of the Masses, it is part of our tradition, it is part of who we are."

Collecta said...

Perhaps the good Cardinal should check out an excellent interview on Athanasius with an Independent priest:

Interview I, II

Athanasius said...

Macarius has already informed you of the different forms of the Byzantine Rite. Please try and inform yourself before making such pronouncement.

It seems to me that the comparison is apples and oranges. For example, the liturgy of St. Basil, of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Mark are all usages of the Eastern Church. Thus in as much as they are all in use by members of the same rite as it exists in canonical jurisdiction. In the west we also have different rites in use (though not even a fraction of the extent as they are used in the east) the Mozarabic, Ambrosian and Sarum as well as the Roman liturgy and the variations of religious orders.

What the Holy Father is arguing, is akin in Eastern language to saying that the rite of John Chyrostom now has two forms, extraordinary and ordinary. That would be unprecedented!

Hung D. said...

On the one hand, it may be "precendent" in the sense of his using the word "uses" instead of "Rites." Perhaps his intent was to update the concept that in fact the "Rites" were really "uses" of the one Roman Rite? For instance, in his capacity as the Prefect of the CDF, he was part of the approval of the Anglican-use of the Roman Rite. Perhaps he made it precedent then, but instead of considering it an Anglican-Rite, it is merely an Anglican-use of the Roman Rite. Anyhow, food for thought, continue the discussion!

Clemens Maria said...

I can understand Cardinal O'Malley's view as the Boston Church and especially the Irish community historically in Boston has had a sad history of bad relations with Jews

It is certainly a laudable goal to maintain good relations with our neighbors.

I can think of other laudable goals as well. Such as saving the lives of an estimated 1 million soldiers in a war. Or the maintenance of a politically strong government in the face of external opposition. Or the maintenance of the good financial health of a Roman Catholic Archdiocese. These are all very good ends to be sought.

The question is by what means shall we accomplish these goals?

President Truman when faced with the prospect of a long drawn out conclusion to the war with Japan decided that it would be better to illegally incinerate tens of thousands of Japanese civilians in order weaken the political power of Japan and thus bring the war to a swift end (saving the lives of an estimated 1 million American soldiers).

The government of Israel has decided to illegally violate the civil rights of Palestinians and Lebanese citizens in order to maintain its political power.

Cardinal O'Malley decided to illegally suppress 62 parishes and confiscate their goods in order to maintain the financial health of the Archdiocese of Boston.

And now Cardinal O'Malley has decided to illegally forbid the prayer for the conversion of the Jews.

The ends do not justify the means.

Jordan Potter said...

For example, the liturgy of St. Basil, of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Mark are all usages of the Eastern Church.

Eastern Churches, you mean. Not all Eastern Catholic Churches use the same liturgies. As dcs said, above, "There are different recensions of the Byzantine Rite, but in general the Byzantine Rite is understood to refer to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with occasional (determined by the Calendar) celebrations of the Liturgy of St. Basil, the Liturgy of St. James, and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. It would not be correct to call the Liturgy of St. James a 'use' of the Byzantine Rite; a Church who used that Liturgy all the time would be Antiochian and not Byzantine. Likewise, the Liturgy of St. Mark, which is not in use at all in the Churches who use the Byzantine Rite, would be Alexandrian."

Thus in as much as they are all in use by members of the same rite as it exists in canonical jurisdiction.

This is a sentence fragment. Inasmuch as they are all in use etc., what?

What the Holy Father is arguing, is akin in Eastern language to saying that the rite of John Chyrostom now has two forms, extraordinary and ordinary. That would be unprecedented!

There is no "Rite" of St. John Chrysostom. It's the "Divine Liturgy" of St. John Chrysostom, which is the primary liturgy of the Byzantine Rite. As mentioned above, in the Byzantine Rite sometimes there is the celebration of the Liturgy of St. Basil, the Liturgy of St. James, and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. That would be analogous to (though not at all the same as) what the Pope has decreed for the Roman Rite: the ordinary "form" (use), the Pauline Missal, and the extraordinary "form (use), the Johannine Missal. It would be a closer analogy if the Pope had decreed that on this or that specific occasion, the Johannine Missal is to be used universally. But it still shows that there is a precedent for what the Pope did. Indeed, before the Pian or Tridentine Missal there were numerous local variations of the Roman Rite, a liturgical diversity that is also something of a precedent for what Benedict XVI has decreed in his motu proprio.

Jordan Potter said...

And now Cardinal O'Malley has decided to illegally forbid the prayer for the conversion of the Jews.

When did he decide to do that? All the statement says is, "Cardinal O'Malley has recently stated that based on his participation at the meeting in Rome, it is his understanding that the elements of the Good Friday services which are understandably objectionable to our Jewish and ecumenical brothers and sisters are not permitted to be used in the celebration of the Tridentine Rite."

It doesn't say, "Cardinal O'Malley will not permit the elements of the Good Friday services which are understandably objectionable to our Jewish and ecumenical brothers and sisters to be used." It only says, "It is his understanding that [those elements] are not permitted." In other words, he doesn't understand what Summorum Pontificum says about the Triduum liturgies, and he thinks it is the Pope who has made that decision. There has been no episcopal act prohibiting the 1962 Good Friday liturgy on the cardinal's part, though his words do have the effect of muddying the waters and making people think the 1962 Good Friday liturgy is forbidden. But the motu proprio places these matters in the hands of the pastor, and if a bishop attempts to contravene what the motu proprio allows, we can appeal to Ecclesia Dei.

papabear said...

Re: Cardinal Malley

I think he is referring to the use of the word "perfidious" in the prayer for the conversion of the Jews, which indeed has been prohibited, has it not?