Rorate Caeli

Monsignor Bux said WHAT???

On November 21, 2010, the 3rd "Conference for Catholic Unity" was held in Versailles to mark the three years that have passed since the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum came into effect. Chretiente posted a report, translated as follows by some friends of Rorate (I have replaced the original emphases with mine):


Implementation of the Motu proprio: may the priests take courage

Last Sunday, the third conference organized by Réunicatho on the three years of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum opened before some 700 persons (in attendance). Daniel Hamiche opened the debates by putting forward the view that the Extraordinary Form ought to become the Ordinary one (by its becoming celebrated more often and everywhere), and that the Ordinary Form should become Extraordinary (following the much-talked-about Reform of the Reform). As for the numbers, the Pope's work of pacification has in three years given France 80 additional places for the celebration of this Mass. However, for Daniel Hamiche, and as everybody involved in the commercial sector knows, it is the offer that creates the demand, as there is no demand for what one does not know. Daniel Hamiche hoped for a new development in the implementation of the Motu proprio, including:

• celebration (of the Extraordinary Form) every Sunday and holy day in every diocesan area;

• at least one celebration once a year by each bishop in his cathedral;

• training in the Extraordinary Form in every seminary;

• the creation within the French Episcopal Conference (the CEF) of a commission dedicated to the application of the Motu proprio.

After this, four applicants gave voice to their experience:

• the Parish of Sainte-Clotilde in Paris, where (the Traditional) Mass has been celebrated on Mondays at noontime, but refused on Sundays at the order of the Archbishop;

• the Parish of Sainte-Madeleine at Plessis-Robinsons, where a solution has been found (to enable a celebration) every Sunday;

• in the valley of Montmorency, where a flawed solution was introduced;

• the Parish of Notre-Dame de Versailles, where the request (for an EF Mass) has been purely and simply refused.

Monsignor Nicola Bux, Consultant to the Office of Liturgical celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff and member of two congregations then talked at length about the liturgy and the Pope’s desire of pacification. He began his intervention by saying that the French bishops, who like to interact with non-Christians, ought also to dialogue with Catholics and that they must not be afraid of the sheep of their own flock! They should confront reality and not the perception that they have of it. He recalled that the Extraordinary Form is for all of the People of God, and not just a minority, and that it ought to serve as a training for the better celebration of the Ordinary Form. He indicated that, in Italy, the implementation of the Motu proprio is done through priests. He therefore admonished priests to be courageous in the implementation of this text. Finally, he added that the refusal of the Extraordinary Form could be considered as a rupture of communion with the Pope.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

WOW!

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

God bless him.

Ellen said...

Fortunately, refusal to accept the Ordinary Form is certainly a rupture of communion.

Kevin Fraher said...

As a child in the 50s our family attended the 8:45 High Mass and it was a reverent celebration.
However, when I went to the other Masses, all Low Masses: No Gregorian Chant, pews very empty until the Offertory (Collection), almost no Communions,
and at that time pews emptying long before the Ite Missa Est. Laity were not really sent to evangelize, only pay, pray and obey ...)

Yes, the Reform following Vatican II is not always celebrated reverently but not worse than those Low Masses.

We humans constantly need renewal and reform.

Anonymous said...

The mention of 80 new places of worship for the T.L.M. in France is a bit of a deception. In how many of these places is the T.L.M. offered every Sunday? Only a few.

But the truth is worse than this for France. Since S.P. was issued three years ago, only the Diocese of Bayonne has added a FIRST every-Sunday T.L.M. (Those in Blois and Metz actually came just befroe S.P. was issued). There are STILL FIFTEEN dioceses in France which have no every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses. Hence, some French bishops who were ALREADY co-operating with the Latin Mass before 2007 have co-operated all the more. But those who were not co-operating before 2007 continue NOT to co-operate.

What is Msgr. Bux doing abuot it? What is the Pope doing about it? Can Benedict XVI not stand up to Mgr. Jordan of Reims? Can he not face Mgr. Gueneley of tiny Langres? There is a cluster of contiguous dicoeses in the north-east of France which does not have EVEN ONE T.L.M. on the every-Sunday basis. They are Reims, Langres, Soissons, Verdun, Cambrai and Chålons. There is also one in the Paris region, St-Denis. The F.S.S.P. is in St-Claude but, after endless months there, can still not improve from semi-monthly T.L.M.s to the every-Sunday basis. There is also pathetic access and not every Sunday in the Diocese of La Rochelle. Must the Catholic forces re-conquer La Rochelle from the Huguenots, who are now posing as Catholics?

What is going on?

Some of the demands of the members of this meeting are unreasonable if applied internationally. Conditions in France are not conditions in the Congo or in Indomesia or in Canada. I think that, for starters, Rome needs to interpret Article 1 of S.P. to mean that, as a norm at law, there must be a MINIMUM of one T.L.M. every Sunday in every diocese throughout the world, PLUS others in accordance with requests and reasonable dispositon of available manpower and resources.

A norm at law would not mean a strict guarantee because it can be limited by available means. For example, in a minor diocese in the Congo, there might not be any priests who know how to offer the old Mass, and there might be no request for it and no suitable place for its celebration and no easy way to train celebrants.

However, Msgr. Bux is right to enunciate the principle that the T.L.M. is for all the faithful and not only those who request it. If this principle be affirmed, it would be possible to establish a norm of one every Sunday in every see. This, in turn, would impose an ordinary obligation on every bishop. Under the Vatican II principle of subsidiarity, the immediate local authority has the ordinary obligation to act first. But when it is unable to do so, then the Universal authority may act. Moreover, if there is a general situation in which many local authorities lack the means to fulfil the obligation, it is justified for the Universal authority to take action to 'help' the poor unabled bishops. In other words, Rome could create supplementary jurisdictions to make the T.L.M. available to all as a treasure of the Church. There could be a universal jurisdiction for this or, should this be forbidden by various concordats, there could be large regional ordinariates, for example, where needed.

I have devised a new game plan for how this can be done practically but I'm presently way too busy to set it forth here at this hour. I will when I can.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Fraher dares to write this:

"Yes, the Reform following Vatican II is not always celebrated reverently but not worse than those Low Masses."

I'd say that the New Mass is worse in obvious effect than those Low Masses 99% of the time. 'Tis one thing for a Mass to be (arguably) inadequate; 'tis quite another for it to lead the faithful wildly astray. The legacy of the New Mass is the latter. Perhaps many left those old Low Masses before the Dismissal but they came back the next day or the next Sunday. Those who left the New Mass have mostly left forever.

Yes, the bad text of the New Mass can be said reverently. But the rubrics are an essential part of the Mass, as are the approved musical settings. The Mass consists of texts, rubrics and music and not text alone. What the rubrics allow at the New Mass and what the musical settings have achieved is nothing less than a revolution. As for the text, it has made a Catholic liturgy into one having an ambiguous signification. What we have now is an 'anything goes' liturgy. That's not merely inadequate; it is perverse.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"...'celebrated reverently.'"

At my parish, as well as parishes in my area, Mass is "celebrated reverently."

Pianos, altar girls, Communion in the hand, versus populum, laity distribute Holy Communion...

Everything is performed in reverent fashion.

So what?

What is wonderful about "reverent" novelty-filled liturgy?

Tim

Anonymous said...

If the TLM is for everybody, then why has Pope Benedict XVI made it clear that the TLM will remain very limited throughout the Church.

His Holiness declared:

"...this Motu Proprio is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy."

His Holiness declared:

"The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.

"Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."

Anonymous said...

You are right, Tim.

But there is more. I don't agree at all with the idea that a recited Low Mass is deficient. On the contrary, the Holy Ghost was wise to provide us with both glorious sung Mass and prayerful recited Low Masses.

I prefer the former for Sundays but would not want to do without the quiet prayerfulness of the latter.

P.K.T.P.

dom guzmán said...

I am sorry, Mr. Fraher.

Though perhaps irreverently celebrated, the ancient Roman Rite has more spiritual benefits than the new Vatican Rite. How many saints has the new rite produced?

The Mass of the Ages contains all the theology you need to know. It has been handed down through the ages with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was a rite that was not legislated, but grew as a result of organic development, i.e., some local practices were incorporated into the Mass as they were popular and added to the worship of God.

I truly believe that as a result of the imposition of the new rite, that we all the graces God has made available to us, cannot be realized.

I think that only when each parish offers at least one TLM on Sunday, will the Church come out of the fog.

There is no demand for the TLM because the faithful, poorly catechized to begin with, have been lead to believe that the Roman Rite has been suppressed. Were it made available to the faithful on a regular basis, its superiority as a vehicle to worship and thank God and to obtain grace would be made manifest.

Anonymous said...

I believe that for years to come, the TLM will opposed at parishes by lay Catholics who exercise "ministries," particularly liturgical "ministries."

Last year at my parish (Dallas Diocese), the pastor declared with during Mass that it takes dozens of "lay people" to "put on" each Mass.

The reformed Mass, he explained, is an "active participation" Mass that "requires" lay Catholics to be front and center at Mass.

Lay people must perform the readings, distribute Holy Communion, serve as "hospitality ministers"...and it's important that females be featured at Mass, particularly as altar girls.

One Dallas parish boasts that they are "vibrant" as "65 different" lay ministries exist at said parish.

Another Dallas parish insists that they are "vibrant" as they boast nearly 300 "Eucharist Ministers."

I assisted at a Mass during which the pastor asked each "EM, lector, altar server, hospitality minister" (and so forth) to stand.

(They received applause.)

I believe that at said Mass, at least 25 percent of people present exercised "lay ministries."

It is my opinion that at more than a few parishes, the Novus Ordo serves as the personal playground for people who fancy themselves as "lay ministers."

I believe that there are "music ministers" who feel the need to foist their drums, pianso and guitars upon us...they receive applause following Mass.

(Shouldn't announcements be made to urge people not to the choir?)We are dealing with parishoners

I believe that we are dealing with laymen (not to mention priests) who will fight to the end to prevent the God-centered TLM from be offered even once per Sunday at "their" parishes.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't Pope Benedict XVI simply exhort each parish to offer at least one TLM per Sunday?

I would like to hear and/or read a statement issued directly by Pope Benedict in regard to the above.

The Pope desires supposedly this and that, according to this Cardinal and that priest.

It is time to hear directly from Pope Benedict XVI.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Rupture of Communion with the Pope?

Pope Benedict XVI has refused to offer the Traditional Latin Mass.

I'm certain that the Pope is aware that if anything, his offering of the TLM would spark tremendous news coverage and, to use the following word, "publicity", for the TLM.

At the very least, the Pope is aware that millions of Catholics plead daily in their hearts and minds for him to offer the TLM.

Why does he not offer the TLM?

I do not blame bishops and priests who refuse to offer the TLM via the following argument: The Pope has refused to offer the TLM...I'm simply following the Pope's action.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Fraher mentions the pathetic lack of reverence from Catholics toward the low mass. I have heard these same things too and other criticisms from people who lived in the 50s and 60s. They comment about bad priests, hurrying through mass, people coming late and leaving early....for the high mass too. These folks also talk about blind obedience and an abusive hierarchy. It makes me wonder what it was really like back then?

Is it any wonder we lost the mass of all times for the wretched NO.
Mr. Perkins makes a good point, in the NO people left the Church forever not just early from one mass, perhaps even poorly said (I don't condone either behavior).

Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"Why doesn't Pope Benedict XVI simply exhort each parish to offer at least one TLM per Sunday?"

Answer: because exhortation won't work with that lot, as we now know all too well.

If he commands them, they will claim that they'd love to comply but cannot, as they lack the means.

One T.L.M. per parish is wildly unrealistic, as anyone who has a handle on the numbers would know. No pride intended here but I am *very* conversant with the numbers and not just for the U.S.A. or France but internationally.

A reasonable standard would be a minimum of one every-Sunday T.L.M. per diocese PLUS more in accordance with the requests of groups of faithful in the parishes. That means one per diocese even if not one single person asks for one.

But to ask for one per parish is nutty. You might as well ask that the Church deposit $10 million in your bank account before Friday. Only someone who does not know the numbers OR the law could suggest such a thing. Keep in mind that priests have a right and an ordinary obligation to offer Mass once per day. You cannot force them to offer Mass more often and you cannot, in current law, force them to offer the T.L.M. Furthermore, many of them are already binating and trinating, something allowed in the Church as a needed exception but not an ideal or a requirement. It's time to get real.

Frenchmen and Americans have a relatively good situation and tend to assume that eveyone else has the same. In fact, there are only about ten every-Sunday T.L.M.s in the entire continent of Africa, which has more than fifty countries in it. In Asia, they exist only in a few dioceses in the Philippines and at Hong Kong and on Guam. It is not fair and it is not right that every parish in France have a T.L.M. when entire countries in Africa and Asia don't even have one. Wake up! We are all spiritually equal in Holy Church.

P.K.T.P.

Johannes said...

This is truly wonderful. In France no less. France where liturgical abuses were (and I do not doubt are) among the very worst (it was so with all of the French-speaking and German-speaking countries) and where one would not dare to hope a bishop would advocate the wider and more regular use of the vsvs antiqvior - here is advocacy for a regular celebration according to it for all and not only those who ask for it. As one going there very soon (March if God wills it) - I am considerably heartened.

It has always been my conviction that in time the Novvs Ordo play-masses would be replaced not by any domineering action of the bishop of Rome or another ecumenical Council - but by the very force of the fact that we faithful (especially us the young; I am only recently twenty years old) want the vsvs antiqvior and not the Novvs Ordo. This looks like a door opening and indeed reciprocation on the part of the bishops in recognition that not only we who want it but all Catholics should know and have the ancient Mass.

Perhaps this should be urged not only as the true implementation of Svmmorvm Pontificvm but as well as the necessary implementation of the ninth canon of the twenty secondth session of the Council of Trent.

Pray.

Katie said...

Amazing! We only have the opportunity to attend TLM once a month (45 minutes away) but faithfully attend. And incidentally, the Low Mass is my 9 year old daughter's favorite. So much for the idea that we can only get children and young people engaged in the Mass with guitars and boisterous singing of a Christian pop music.

LeonG said...

"laity distribute Holy Communion"!

According to St Thomas Acquinas only what is consecrated should touch what is sacred. Therefore, the above act is irreverent by definition. This is the genre of ignorance we detect on a regular basis in the NO. Forty years of a protestantised and anthropomorphic liturgical rite have induced a complete lack of Catholic discernment on what constitutes proper liturgical form.
When I used to attend the NO the rubrics were routinely disobeyed. In France I have never attended a NO liturgy that was faithful to the rubrics - never!

Joe B said...

P.K.T.P., it seems to me that resigning ourselves to the N.O. in all parishes means we are stuck in a suicide pact, so to say. The question is whether it saves more souls THAN THE TLM or loses more. There are three options - eliminate the TLM, eliminate the N.O., or offer both - but which option saves the most souls? We tried "eliminating" the TLM and that got disastrous results, we have many centuries of no N.O. with good results, and we are currently in the process of offering both, but my question to you is whether you've seen enough of option three to conclude that the N.O. must go altogether because of the church's highest mission to save as many souls as possible.

Is the N.O. a net positive or a net negative? If a net negative, it must go, carnage or not, as the sooner it goes the less carnage (lost souls) there will be in the long run.

I understand your view that it is not practical to think of getting rid of the N.O. at this time, but my question is, would it be better if it could be done?

Anonymous said...

To add a bit of sober scepticism, I would like to publically testify that Father Noara a minor functionary at Ecclesia Dei affirmed to me in person in June of this year, that the Commission does not want new traditional communities of priests and religious, but rather that the older liturgy spread in the existing communities.

I think this is a very bad policy, because it ignores all the moral and doctrinal problems in the NO communities, and forces new vocations to choose comprimise over an option which would better ensure their own personal salvation.

Likewise, when the Pope appoints men like the Archbishop of Palermo, a staunch opponent of the TLM, he sends the message that he is willing to empower opposition to the return of the TLM.

One Bishop in Calabria, Italy, affirmed to friends of mine, that a large group of Bishops of Southern Italy, just after the MP was promulgated, went to B16 and told him emphatically that they don't want the old rite and will use every method to obstruct the MP's implimentation.

Without further canonical support from Rome, the MP remains too weak to protect Catholics from exercising their religious liberty to return to the Old Rite and maintain the practice of a solid and stable form of Catholicism.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Johannes said...

Katie wrote "And incidentally, the Low Mass is my 9 year old daughter's favorite. So much for the idea that we can only get children and young people engaged in the Mass with guitars and boisterous singing of a Christian pop music."

It is very good to hear. It is interesting to note that even the less stridently "traditional" are beginning to recognize not only that the attempt to trick the young into worshiping has been a monumental failure and only served to fuel derision of the Church because of the desperation and weakness so manifestly involved in such an attempt - not only this, but that the exact opposite is so. We the young want Latin; we want holy; we want solemn; we want to pray what the saints did; we want the same atmosphere of the days of the apostles and all through the several centuries until fifty or so years ago.

I spoke with a man, a good man nearly eighty years of age, Cyril yesterday who told me how fifty years ago when the Mass was in Latin the small rural parish had two Masses each Sunday with the small country church (heritage listed; providently) swollen with people. We have about twenty (at best) at our single vigil Mass on Saturday evening (the same priest needs to be at another parish about forty kilometres from here on Sunday). He said that if they returned to the Latin Mass as against the Novvs Ordo and it's abuse of extraordinary ministers - he would bring his nephews to be altar boys as he was.

That a return to the Latin Mass would bring in the young is indicated by

i) I myself, the youngest to attend Mass. I and the local priest (much better than most if imperfect as all; being unserious and over-jovial is his main fault to my eyes) make a microcosm of the situation. He is well into seventy certain that Vatican II was a spring-time and second Pentecost and that only the vernacular and Novvs Ordo can be a "dynamic" liturgy. I am twenty and attend only because it is valid and there is nothing else (except on occasions; I was baptized according to the old Ritvale; my first communion was a private Latin spoken mass; he was willing to have one on the feastday of my namesake; better than most...)

ii) Other indications in the diocese including a move by some university students to have regular Masses according to the vsvs antiqvior - again expressly as part of the implementation of Svmmorvm Pontificvm. It was not of sufficient note to make the local diocesan monthly publication; while some made-up prats glazed in deoderant only doubtfully Catholic at all hosting a charity ball must not be passed over. (?!)

Most here are like Cyril. They are not to arms because of the change and they have remained steadfast and faithful through it. But they see no young men in the parish for Mass, few at all of any age and remember when and have begun to see why it was different. They now dimly hope for a return to the Latin Mass (he asked me very plainly whether it was true that the Latin Mass was being restored; I do not know where he had heard that but I told him of Svmmorvm Pontificvm).

Again - pray.