Rorate Caeli

Silently

Interesting words of Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of Divine Worship, to Spanish religious news site Religión en Libertad:
-How to recover the sense of liturgy?

-At this time, we are working in a very silent manner in a whole series of themes related to projects of formation. It is the primary need: a good and true liturgical formation. The theme of liturgical formation is essential because not enough formation is really available. People believe that the liturgy is a matter of external forms and realities, yet what really is missing for us is to recover the sense of worship, that is, the sense of God as God. This sense of God can only be recovered through the liturgy. That is why the Pope has so much interest in accentuating the priority of the liturgy in the life of the Church. ...

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ah, these words are like a laver of equivocation, signifying everything while meaning nothing.

I suspect that it's code for 'We're gutting that joke Mass from Vatican II'.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure how to e-mail Rorate Caeli, but I had this little tidbit of information that might be worth sharing.

I have been communicating with the leadership of the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, and t hey say they are very happy about the personal ordinariate that was given to the Traditional Anglicans.

As High Church Lutherans, they have been seeking a similar agreement with the CDF, and they happen to think that the agreement may come in a rather short time.

--------
> Your Grace,
>
> Surely you have heard the news about the CDF's offer for Personal Ordinariates to the Traditional Anglican Communion !
>
> I have been wondering whether, God helping, a similar agreement could be reached with the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, given that High Church Lutheranism has many points in common with High Church Anglicanism.
>
> Your ecclesial community has already sworn upon the content of the Catechims of the Catholic Church, and you celebrate very similar rites to those of the Roman Catholic Church. Now would be a very good time to enter into full communion with the Apostolic See
>
> Yours truly,
>

-----
We are praying that this will happen. Actually, on May 15th of this year the ALCC filed its own petition to Cardinal Kasper asking for assistance in finding a way for it to be received into the Roman Catholic Church intact "as a unified body in whichever form is the most practical. Cardinal Kasper forwarded our petition to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which responded favorably, and is working on it. (The ALCC is also represented in this matter by a prominent Roman Catholic Canon Lawyer.) The ALCC has asked the Blessed Virgin Mary for the favor of interceeding for us that one day we will enter the Catholic Church.

Our petition includes these words" "The prodigal has returned and is at your door. Holy Father, please let us in." Please pray for the ALCC, and for the reunion of the Church, Monica.

Yours in the fellowship of Our Lady, the Mother of the Church,
Most Rev. Irl A. Gladfelter, C.S.P., S.T.M., D.D.
Metropolitan Archbishop, Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church
International Headquarters, St. Michael's House
1200 N.E. Terrace
Kansas City, MO 64118-1361
Chancery: (816) 468-9691
E-mail: ALCClutherans@kc.rr.com
National Church Website: www.anglolutherancatholic.org
Archdiocesan Website: www.ecclnet.org

New Catholic said...

Dear Anon,

You may send any information to: newcatholic AT gmail DOT com

Thank you,

NC

Anonymous said...

Recovery, recovery, recovery.

Funny, but TLM parishes and communities are not in need of "recovery."

Note to Rome: Forget your "reform of the reform"...simply cut to the chase by returning to the TLM.

Regarding the need for "recovery," what happened to the supposed tremendous liturgical "renewal" and "joyful fervor" that Rome and our bishops had insisted the post-Vatican II Church had enjoyed?

As Pope John Paul II declared and our bishops promoted:

"The vast majority of the pastors and the Christian people have accepted the liturgical reform in a spirit of obedience and indeed joyful fervor.

"For this we should give thanks to God for that movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church which the liturgical renewal represents; for the fact that the table of the Word of God is now abundantly furnished for all.

"These are all reasons for holding fast to the teaching of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and to the reforms which it has made possible: "the liturgical renewal is the most visible fruit of the whole work of the Council

"...the reform of the Liturgy was to contribute to the overall renewal of the Church."

"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers".

Tim

Dr. Herbert R. said...

...and restore the devotional life of the church. The novenas and pious exercises were little by little extinguished because of insistence on "active participation" where the praying of novenas and little devotions were seen as a distraction from the essence of the liturgy. One way to revitalize the celebration of the liturgy is a return to the more worshipful form as exemplified by the EF and the flourishing of popular devotions.

Anonymous said...

Very strong words of cardinal Canizares if he truly means what he says.

It's not "we're gutting that joke Mass" (P.K.T.P.) but we intend to gut the Bugninist strongholds where the "joke celebration" was crafted i.e. the Litnik training centers all over the world, those Litnik training centers providing the CDW with most of its "consultors", those Litnik fortresses that are sending little litniks in dioceses, populating seminaries with Litnik teachers, providing Bp Trautman at the former B.L.C., granting the infamous "experts" of ICEL during decades, those numerous Litnik publishers editing the nastiest "creative" booklets to flood our churches with non-sense etc.

But this is Your Eminence Hercules'works all at the same time !
I wish you sincerely good luck and maybe let your cup of "cafe" or "cafe latte" be tasted before drinking it. Being surounded by Bugninists in Annibale's House ... I would be myself very cautious... after such a declaration !

Alsaticus

Bill M said...

If the reform of the reform gets any slower I'm not sure if the current crop of NO priests will still be alive to see it.

Some of our NO priests are so ignorant of the terminology assosciated with the TLM that they do not understand you when you try to talk with them about it.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church:

According to the following website,

http://www.saintambrosecollege.org/Faculty.html

Zach Miller of WFAN radio (Sports Radio 66)in New York (I'm familiar with that station) is also known as...

"The Most Rev. Richard J. Stoecker, D.D., Auxiliary Bishop for the Five Boroughs."

(Here is Zach Miller/Lutheran Bishop Richard Stoecker's website:
http://www.zachtmartin.com/resume.html)

Do ALCC "priests" receive sufficient incomes to serve full-time at their parishes?

If they do not, would that change should they join the Church?

Tim

Irenaeus of New York said...

Very wise,

they should do more things in silent without press releases. They should know by now that the press will re-present everything through an anti-catholic filter.

Anonymous said...

"Some of our NO priests are so ignorant of the terminology assosciated with the TLM that they do not understand you when you try to talk with them about it."

But there are TLM-challenged priests who desire to acquaint themselves with the TLM.

Others are very knowledgable of the TLM but do not want any part of said Mass.

A priest of the Dallas Diocese who has been tapped to help determine whether Dallas priests and parishes should be permitted to offer the TLM speaks of the TLM as a flawed liturgy of the past that was in need of major reform.

A Dallas conservative charismatic priest who grew up with the TLM told me that he refuses to offer any form of the Mass in Latin as that is opposed to his spirituality.

My point is that I have found that older priests who are familiar with the TLM tend to oppose the TLM.

Compared to older priests, I have greater hope for a TLM revival among priests who are not familiar with the TLM.

Perhaps the following sheds light upon why older priests (and lay Catholics) oppose the TLM with great vigor.

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness today, of course) declared regarding the pre-Vatican II liturgical situation:

"I have great respect for our forefathers who at Low Mass said the "Prayers during Mass" contained in their prayer books, but certainly one cannot consider that as the ideal of liturgical celebration!

"Perhaps these reductionist forms of celebration are the real reason that the disappearance of the old liturgical books was of no importance in many countries and caused no sorrow.

"One was never in contact with the liturgy itself."

Tim

wheat4paradise said...

A priest of the Dallas Diocese who has been tapped to help determine whether Dallas priests and parishes should be permitted to offer the TLM ...

Permitted???!!!

The Pope has already granted permission. Who do these people think that they are???

Anonymous said...

Silence - that is what has greeted the recent publication of the Eucharistic Compendium, where the EF is showcased alongside the OF, and the whole ethos is EF (see the pictures!). I know why the liberals are ignoring this milestone publication, but why is it not on orthodox radars, incl that of Rorate?!

LeonG said...

These NO cardinals will say anything ambivalent to attempt a justification for the ordinary liturgy which is asphyxiating The Faith. The remedy is a very straightforward Roman Catholic solution: abolition of vernacular services with inappropriate popular participation and a restitution of the Holy Mass of All Time. The experiment with anathematised liturgical forms which has propagated all variety of illicit behaviours and invalidating intentions is a lamentable mistake and should be terminated for all time.

My prayers are constantly for an end to the Bugnini anthropocentric and protestant liturgy.

LeonG said...

Furthermore, Anonymous, the same Fr Ratzinger wrote in 1966 at the close of the Vatican Councils,

"...As a consequence of this link [the set authority of the Holy See], there was a complete archeologization of the liturgy, which from the state of a living history was changed into that of pure conservation and, therefore, condemned to an internal death. Liturgy became once and forever a closed construction, firmly petrified. The more it was concerned about the integrity of pre-existent formulas, the more it lost its connection to concrete devotions ..............

.... In this situation, the baroque carved it [the liturgy] superimposing a people's para-liturgy over its true and proper archeologized liturgy. The solemn baroque mass, through the splendor of the orchestra's performance, became a kind of sacred opera, in which the songs of the priest had their role as did the alternating recitals. .... On the ordinary days that did not allow such a performance, devotions that followed the people's mentality were often added to the mass.
(Problemi e risultati del Concilio Vaticano II, Brescia: Queriniana, 1967, pp. 25-27)

These observations are those of a liberal moderniser who wants to see revolution in the liturgy somewhat as the one that came to pass in 1969 with the dreadfully destructive consequences witnessed today. Many neo-catholics have absolutely no idea where Fr Ratzinger came from before he was elected supreme pontiff. Frankly, his views on the old liturgy, as he calls it, were distorted and so too were his perspectives on old devotions of which he disapproved.

Instead of alleged "archeologisation" we now have inculturated liturgical anarchy. It is difficult to detect any continuity there.

Colin said...

I completely agree with Dr Herbert. Restoration should begin by the local bishop giving a lead to all parish priests to promote prayer and devotion as follows:-
On one day each week say The Rosary followed by a novena to Our Blessed Lady with short homily on just one event in her life followed by devotions.
The priest alone must conduct the whole proceedings. Let's return to spiritual participation rather having people wandering around doing external things - such a distraction.
I would like to see the tabernacle and the tall crucifix restored to the center of the altar to focus our attention on Christ our Saviour.

Anonymous said...

"...but why is it not on orthodox radars, incl that of Rorate?!"

Well, please tell us where to find it, etc.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible to make a separate feed with all recent comments on Rorate Caeli, not regarding to any particular post? When a few posts are being discussed we wouldn't have to keep reloading pages or adding their comment feeds separately.

Anonymous said...

"Permitted???!!! The Pope has already granted permission. Who do these people think that they are???"

September 16, 2007, from Bishop Farrell of Dallas:

"It is my intention to establish a committee of four priests who have knowledge of the Tridentine Rite to assist me in reviewing all requests from priests and the laity to establish public Masses in the Extraordinary Form.

"It will be the responsibility of this committee to assess the Pastoral needs of the people as well as the capacity of our priests and parishes to celebrate the Mass in this Form."

The funny thing regarding the above is that at least one Dallas priest who would review TLM "requests" speaks of the TLM as a past-tense, flawed liturgy that was in dire need of reform.

Therefore, does the Dallas Diocese expect its subjects to believe that they intend to implement Summorum Pontificum?

One young Dallas priest who knows the TLM and desired to offer "both form" of Mass in Latin was denied permission to do so.

I know that for a fact.

Tim

Anonymous said...

"Is it possible to make a separate feed with all recent comments on Rorate Caeli"

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/feeds/comments/default

I wasn't aware of that, sorry

Luiz said...

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Where is the problem? Just think!

Joe B said...

Those who are attracted to the TLM seem to me the most serious Catholics, in general. The devoutness and sacredness of that form are magnets for those souls that would let themselves be drawn deeper into spirituality.

But these are distracting times, for sure. Not very many souls are open to the hard truths of serious Catholicism, like the need for pennance. Thus, the convents and monasteries are virtually empty.

So when priests see so many empty pews abd lacadaisical Catholics, naturally they would look to drastically change the externals of their main form of contact with these souls - the mass. But, again, that isn't the base problem. Perfected forms of temptation (TV, movies, internet, wealth, lots of leisure time, lawmakers empowered by majorities rather than the church in great influence over accountable authority) are wreaking havoc on souls, and I don't see the church regaining major influence over those mediums. Hence, it may well be that the TLM continues to attract only small communities, with the rest floundering for solutions which only exascerbate the problem.

I believe we have always been dependent on tiny numbers of holy leaders to drag us away from our worst tendencies, but that tiny number has today been separated from the majority by two mass forms, and unless the majority is authoritatively commanded to return to the mass to which the sevout are attracted, no significant progress is likely. And I don't see that happening.

Save yourself. Be grateful for the TLM when you can get it. It is unlikely to overwhelm the faithful.

It's called a state of crisis, and I believe SSPX is right and is pursueing the best course for the good of the most souls.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect to our Holy Father, he could use his authority to get the ball really rolling. Enough of this dragging of feet! How many souls have been lost? How many thousands left the Church? Doesn't anyone care anymore?

Would that they had in the sixties and seventies instead of shoving the disgraceful nonsense down our throats; all in the name of obedience of course.

Anonymous said...

Remember Catholics in Dallas your bishop is in fear of losing control. After all the Bishop of Rome has no power here. THanks too Vac ii.

wheat4paradise said...

One cannot help but notice that the Bishop of Dallas hasn't set up a committee to "review requests" for multicultural balloon masses. Those are just a matter of course. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

"Remember Catholics in Dallas your bishop is in fear of losing control. After all the Bishop of Rome has no power here."

I went to confession last Saturday at a nearby parish (Dallas Diocese). My experiences are always similiar there.

The "confessionals" are hidden behind a closed-door chapel.

During the one hour that Confession is available, perhaps...and I'm not kidding...10 people are to be found in the chapel.

The Church is barren of sacred images and Catholic symbols.

As I entered last Saturday, a few women sat in the pews, chattering away.

The old 1960s-types who comprised the "choir" practiced the saxophone.

Three weeks ago when I was there, they had bongo drums.

Saxophone, guitars, drums, piano, empty confessionals and about eight converts per year symbolize the spiritual health of that all but dead parish.

Last Satuday I observed a "Catholic" parish that clearly has been invaded by barbarians who despise Holy Tradition.

It is absurd to believe that such a parish would promote anything close to Holy Tradition.

I am convinced more than ever that only a reverse Pope Paul VI liturgical reform is possible within the Latin Church.

Reform is possible only when a Pope foists Holy Tradition upon the Latin Church.

Oh, but people will revolt and leave the Church!

Good.

Sweep the barbarians away. They will be replaced by Catholics who love Holy Tradition.

Said Catholics will, in turn, restore Catholicism at said parishes and the Faith will thrive.

Sorry, but the slooooow pace of the "reform of the reform" is a waste of time.

We need another Pope Paul VI -- as in a Pope who will force liturgical reform upon the Church.

But this time the reform must promote Holy Tradition.

Tim

Henry said...

I'm not sure if the current crop of NO priests will still be alive to see it.

The point is that no one will see it while the current crop of NO priests is still alive. It awaits the coming new generation of priests.

Seriously, does anyone think the typical current priest's ars celebrandi can be affected by new rules and regs, by anything the Pope might say or not say?

Really, has anyone ever seen one of these leopards change its spots? I certainly haven't.

Colin said...

May I comment on wheat4paradise
who writes...
A priest of the Dallas Diocese who has been tapped to help determine whether Dallas priests and parishes should be permitted to offer the TLM ...

Permitted???!!!(by whom)

The Pope has already granted permission. (absolutely true)
Q: Who do these people think that they are???
A: They all think they are the mini Popes.

Solution: Use the Killala Remedy.

1. Form a named group e.g. Dallas TLM in each parish. Meet in church as a group after mass each Sunday and say the Rosary. I bet others will join in.
2. Read and do exactly what the link below advises.

http://faithfulrebel.blogspot.com/2007/07/toolkit-for-summorum-pontificum-how-to.html

3. With prayer and patience you will get the desired result; see below the Killala experience.

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2009/03/vatican-clamps-down-on-killala-latin.html

and keep us all informed of your progress and note that this is your right as a Roman Catholic given to you by Benedict XV1.

wheat4paradise said...

Thanks, Colin. The SP Toolkit is an excellent resource. Also, I had never heard about the Killala experience. There is hope!

Anonymous said...

John Paul II said: "the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers".

Benedict XVI said: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."

So all the "attached to the TLM" are people who want to freeze the tradition at some point ("the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional") for purely personal, subjective reasons (because "there is no contradiction").

Roma locuta, causa finita.

Colin said...

It is very difficult to write a comment or make argument to folks who are all responding under anonymous. Is there any way to distinguish ? Suggest anonymous1 ..2...3 etc

Jordanes said...

Colin,

At this time the only way to distinguish among all the people who for some inexplicable reason choose not to take a couple seconds to type a screenname is to refer to their comments by the timestamp.

The policy regarding anonymous comments is at the discretion of the blog owner.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:28

I'd like you to do a study of the 1962 (or prior) Mass along side the novus ordo. Are they different?

Also, one thing that really irks me is when I hear people say things like: for those "attached" to the TLM. Attachment has absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor do we want to "freeze" anything. You could accuse the Church of doing that for centuries if that was the case.

Colin said...

Jordanes: Thanks. I didn't notice the Time Stamp on every message.
So perhaps I can help
Anon 12:28

Anonymous said...

Anon. 1228:

Liturgiologists have various ways of noting liturgical change: additions, deletions, recastings, substitutions, re-orderings, innovations, options, rubrical change, change in rubrical terminology, change in musical settings.

In every one of these categories, the New Mass represents a striking departure from its predecessor. Keep in mind also that the Mass per se is not to be confused with any particular celebration thereof. The Mass includes all its possible variations. It is possible to celebrate NewMass in such as way that it seems completely unrelated to the Mass of the Ages. Indeed, one could witness the two and come away thinking that they were liturgies of two completely different religions. Is this development or rupture? It is rupture. Even the means of alteration between the two is radically different, the Traditional Mass being changed gradually over time under the principle that no change will be introduced if not strictly needed, whereas NewMass was concocted in committee by a man whom Paul VI came to believe was a Freemason, and this Bugnini's council was assisted by six heretics. That is why the term 'spiritual drink' in reference to the Preciuos Blood was lifted straight out of Cranmer's heretical Communion Service and intruded into the Offertory.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Benedict XVI were to write 'Roman Mass' on the titlepage of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. Would that make the latter into the former? By no means.

Let us consider a second case. Let us suppose that the Pope made so many changes to NewMass that the Traditional Latin Mass was actually closer in spirit and in content to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy than it was to the New Mass? Could we still say, then, that the T.L.M. and N.O.M. were different 'forms' of the same Rite of Mass? If we did so, in what sense could we say that the Byzantine Divine Liturgy was a Rite of Mass? The terms rite and form would become meaningless.

Now let us consider a third case. The Pope changes the Roman Mass radically, in accordance with every one of the categories of change known to liturgiologists. But his changes still leave the New Mass closer in form to the T.L.M. than they are to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. Can we still call T.L.M. and N.O.M. two forms of one rite? Where do we draw the line?

Law is not the absolute pronounement of popes in some vacuum. Any lawywer will tell you that law must respect reality and follow life. The T.L.M. and N.O.M. are not two forms of one Rite. They are two different Rites of Mass no matter what Benedict XVI signed to the contrary in some formula dreamed up by Msgr. Camille Perl, a man who, thank God, is now cast out of the P.C.E.D.

P.K.T.P.

Colin said...

To Anonymous 12:28 and anyone else who wishes to know.
Here are 2 Utube Videos which show clearly and explain the difference between the Novus Ordo and the TLM.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA

I think they will open your eyes!

UD said...

Some questions rearding the SP toolkit outlined above for my own situation in Dallas.

I am a student at the University of Dallas and would like to have a TLM offered on campus. I attend the TLM supported by Mater Dei when I can but is not always possible for me. The NO Masses on campuses are bad: no Latin, piano music, and lots of extraordinary ministers. The church is also hideous.

Since there is already a Latin Mass community in the diocese does that change the procedure I would follow or not.

Anonymous said...

PKTP, Colin et al.:

So why Benedict XVI and John Paul II have said what they have said? I can't think that they were lying. They both were university professors, so probably being not smart enough to see the rupture is not the case.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 21.24 wrote:

"So why Benedict XVI and John Paul II have said what they have said? I can't think that they were lying. They both were university professors, so probably being not smart enough to see the rupture is not the case."

First of all, they aren't the only university professors here. University professors can get things wrong.

Secondly, were they lying? No, they were mistaken. Perhaps it was wishful thinking. Being part of the reforms and having implemented them, they probably don't like the idea that they have contributed to a rupture with the past. Who would? (Well, archbiberals would, all right).

I think that Benedict XVI realises that NewMass repreents a liturgical rupture, even if he didn't realise it when he made the remark which you've quoted. That's why there are currently 'projects' afoot in the curia to 'reform the reform'.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear U.D.:

No, it doesn't change the procedure. Since there is a university chaplain, presumably, you'd form a group and approach him with a request (Article 7 of S.P., if memory serves me aright).

If they want to say no, they really can, since they can argue a lack of resources, &c. So be gracious and polite, not that you wouldn't be anyway.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Colin:

Thanks for the links. In regard to the first one, however, I don't think that the presenter makes the best case. He says that he wants to be "fair and honest" by comparing a restrained and proper celebration of NewMass with the T.L.M. But that is not fair and honest at all. As I remarked before, the Mass is more than any one celebration or even more than the Missal which expresses it. A Rite of Mass includes all the possibilities allowed by the rubrics, and all the ceremonies for all days, not just those for one day.

While it is true that a Mass celebrated by Fr. Bozo in a clown suit is not property a New Mass, it is also the case that truly nauseating, vomit-inducing songs from "Glory and Praise", an approved hymnal ARE part of NewMass because the Mass includes all the approved musical settings. Frankly, the clown suit would be far more upsetting to me that a song with guitars which is allowed by NewMass. In the latter case, what is needed is a bonfire to deal with the hymnals.

It is also the case that the rubrics of NewMass tend to be very permissive. This is not to say that they allow everything one might see in a parish. But they do allow much of what I'd call abuse.

Let us consider an example. In my old N.O. parish from way back before I rediscovered Tradition (a long time ago in a galaxy far far away), Father 'did' the Bidding Prayer or 'Prayer of General Intercession' by simply allowing faithful to offer 'prayers from the floor'. It was a free-for-all in which faithful were constantly interrupting one another. The impression was one of total chaos. It would go something like this:

Faithful #1: Let us p---

Faithful #2: May we pray f--

Faithful #1: --pray for the repose of the s--

Faithful # 3: Let us ask for th--

And Father would sit there with a silly smile on his face, and make no attempt to separate these clowns' petitions from one another. He was following the rubrics! The rubrics of NewMass merely *suggest* that the celebrant impose some form for these prayers. It is not required. Therefore, what he was doing was completely permissible under the rubrics of NewMass.

So, if I were offering a fair comparison between the two Rites of Mass, I would include this cacophany for NewMass. It's allowed by the rubrics!

This is one of dozens of possible examples.

P.K.T.P.

UD said...

Thanks P.T.P.K.,

A couple more questions. If the chaplain sys he personally can't do it (I'm pretty sure he will say he personally won't do it), how would I get permission for another priest to come if I could find one who would?
Talking to an upperclassmen I have learned that thee have been attempts (not sure exactly what they entailed) before, but that nothing has come of it.

-a UD student who wishes to remain anonymous

Anonymous said...

On U.D.s question:

The first step is to write a petition addressed to the chaplain. It should have at least three names on it, and the more you have the better.

Now you need to refer to Article 1 of S.P., and to Article 5.1 and to Article 5.5. If he sends you an negative response, send the petition to the parish priest of the parish in which the university chapel is situated. The petition is to have the Mass celebrated every Sunday but not necessarily by any particular church. Think of the parish priest (you Americans call him a 'pastor', which I think is very bad but we'll let that pass) as the ruler of a community. He can offer this Mass himself or he can arrange for another priest to offer it in his place.

If the parish priest says that he is not able to satisfy your request, the next step is to submit it to the Bishop. If you get the same response from him, off it goes to the P.C.E.D.

There is no guarantee of a Mass under S.P. The only guarantee is that they consider your request honestly. They do have an obligation to do that much. If there are no priests available who are willing and able, the P.C.E.D. can ultimately look for a priest from elsewhere who might help you.

If all else fails, get together with your pals and arrange for a shuttle of some kind to the T.L.M. offered by the F.S.S.P., or repair to an Eastern Divine Liturgy. My advice is to avoid the N.O. at all costs. I only go to it if I have no other choice. In Dallas, there might even be an Anglican Use parish. Most of them are in Texas.

P.K.T.P.

UD said...

P.K.T.P.

Thanks for the response I will talk to some of the others on campus who I know would support me.

As far as the NO I think you are exaggerating somewhat. In my home diocese (not Dallas) there is a NO parish where the priest celebrates ad orientem, the Roman canon is used, and some Latin. I know it is not equal to a TLM, but I think it is unfair to categorize every NO Mass as a clown Mass.

Also the NO is pretty my only option for daily Masses.

It honestly surprised me that the university liturgy was so bad (not Mahoney bad but not good either), considering the conservatism of the school and the faculty.

Anonymous said...

Dear U.D.:

I agree that not every N.O. is a clown Mass. On the other hand, no T.L.M. has ever been a clown Mass.

On very rare occasions (rarer or perhaps non-existent now that we have both a T.L.M. and Byzantine Divine Liturgy in my area), I go to the 8.00 a.m. N.O. in the cathedral when there is no other option and there is an obligation to attend. There is a friar serving that Mass and no Altar boyessess and no bad music. Still, I feel physically ill when I hear the N.O. Offertory. It manages to connote heresy and bad taste in a wondrous blend. I expect that the Pope will at least restore the old Offertory to NewMass as an option. Mind you, nothing will make the N.O. acceptable to me.

P.K.T.P.

Colin said...

Some wonderful comments from all contributors.
I think the presenter of both videos is fair and reasonable and an honest attempt to educate but opinions vary. His facts are correct but what disturbed me most was that the new church with its radical modern design external and internal was planned and built well before the N.O Mass was ever said.
I suspect something sinister was afoot.
May I draw the attention to all of the "The Ottaviani Intervention" on the link below and please note the last bit namely a note by the editor: an even more sinister development.

http://www.fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html#I

This should give food for thought.

Savonarola said...

First time I'd seen the term "altar boyessess." I think that the term "girl altarboys" sounds better and reflects the absurdity of the idea.
Savonarola