Sunday, July 8, 2007

Summorum Pontificum

Pope Benedict's release of the motu proprio entitled, "Summorum Pontificum" has generated headlines across the globe. But of all the articles one might read, I recommend this one from Catholic World News.

In it you will find a refreshing, orthodox perspective and analysis. Below I have posted excerpts (and my own commentary) for those who would rather pass up the wonderful opportunity to read it in full. ;)

The long-awaited motu proprio, which had been the subject of intensive speculation within the Church for more than a year, gives every priest the right to celebrate the Mass using the 1962 Missal, and instructs pastors to "willingly accept" requests from the faithful for access to the older liturgical form.

The 1962 Missal is more commonly referred to as the "Tridentine Mass" or the "Traditional Latin Mass." Some of the major differences (from the current Roman Missal, or "Novus Ordo" celebration at your typical Catholic parish) being a Mass almost entirely said in Latin, and the priest facing with the people -- not at them.

The new canonical norms established by Pope Benedict will take effect on September 14.

Pope Benedict emphasizes that there are not two different rites, but two different forms of the Roman rite: the ordinary form, according to the current Roman Missal, and the extraordinary form, which uses the Missal that was in universal use prior to the liturgical changes that followed the Second Vatican Council.

You can find and read the motu proprio issued on Saturday by the Holy Father here. And you can find the text of the Pope's accompanying letter, explaining the move here.

[In his letter, t]he Pope also acknowledges that some Catholics find a greater sense of reverence in the older liturgy--

Yup.

in what will now be known as the extraordinary form of the Roman rite.

With his motu proprio the Holy Father hopes to restore reverence through a wider use of the "extraordinary form" of the liturgy-- the Mass of the 1962 Missal. At the same time, it is clear, he hopes that the wider use of the old form, with its scrupulous attention to rubrics, will encourage a more faithful and reverent approach to the ordinary form in the Novus Ordo Mass.

What is new?

Summorum Pontificum states flatly that the old form of the Mass, the 1962 Missal, was never abrogated. Implicitly the Pope is recognizing that many faithful Catholics have suffered a grave injustice, since they were told that the old form of the liturgy was now forbidden.

Yup.

At present-- until the new norms established in the motu proprio take effect on September 14-- Catholics who seek access to the old Mass must petition their diocesan bishop, who may grant permission of the use of the 1962 Missal, under the terms of Pope John Paul's Ecclesia Dei-- or he may choose not to allow it.

With his new norms Pope Benedict recognizes that many bishops have not allowed the "wide and generous" access to the old form that his predecessor had encouraged.

(including the Archbishop of Seattle...and, unless you happen to live in Nebraska, most likely your bishop as well.)

Citing St. Paul's words to the Corinthians (2 Cor 6), the Pope now exhorts all bishops: "Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows."

Sadly, as the Holy Father is well aware, most bishops need more than a simple exhortation from Rome to...listen to Rome.

Here's to the stripping of some red hats, and perhaps vigorous implementation of Canon Law 401§2 which reads, "A diocesan Bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfillment of his office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation from office."

But I digress.

But Pope Benedict goes beyond exhortation, and establishes the rights of the faithful in terms of canon law. Every priest has the right to use the "extraordinary form," and needs no further permission. Wherever a "stable group" of parishioners asks for the old Mass, their pastor should "willingly accept" their request, the Pope adds.

Long live Pope Benedict!

In ordinary parishes he envisions the use of the "extraordinary form" for one Sunday Mass. He stipulates that the 1962 Missal should not be used for the Easter Triduum in parishes, since during the Triduum the entire parish is drawn together for the celebration in the ordinary form.

What the motu proprio is not

Because much coverage of the motu proprio has been misleading-- especially in the secular media-- it is important to be clear about several things that Summorum Pontificum does not do, and several effects that the Holy Father obviously does not intend:

1. The motu proprio does not restore the use of Latin to the liturgy. Priests have always had the right to use Latin in celebrating the Novus Ordo liturgy-- the "ordinary" form of the Roman rite. Indeed the use of Latin has always been strongly encouraged by the Vatican, even if few pastors have responded.

2. The motu proprio does not require priests to use the older liturgy. Pope Benedict is not imposing any new liturgical forms; he is allowing the faithful to make use of an old form-- which, as he carefully points out, was never banned. Those lay Catholics who prefer the post-conciliar liturgy have no cause for concern; the new liturgy will remain the commonplace experience in most parishes.

[chop]

In America, the liturgy committee of the US bishops' conference has already released a special newsletter dedicated to Summorum Pontificum, including both the papal documents themselves and a series of questions and answers about the new norms and the extraordinary form of the liturgy. Particularly in light of the hostility that the US bishops' committee has sometimes exhibited toward liturgical norms from Rome, the newsletter offers a remarkably even-handed and sympathetic perspective on the motu proprio.

In particular it is gratifying to read that the US bishops' liturgy committee recognizes the many Catholics have been troubled by the Novus Ordo liturgy because of "the false sense of creativity unfortunately practiced by some in the celebration of the post-conciliar liturgical rites." Citing the words of Pope Benedict, the newsletter notes that this "creative" approach has led to "deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear." Insofar as the US bishops are now officially recognizing that experimentation has deformed the liturgy, Summorum Pontificum is already yielding rich fruit.

Friday, July 6, 2007

Countdown

From Catholic World News:

Vatican, Jul. 6, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican press office has confirmed that Summorum Pontificum, the motu proprio regarding the broader use of the 1962 Roman Missal, will be released on Saturday, July 7.

Although some copies of the document-- which was sent to the world's bishops in advance-- are already in circulation, the contexts are under embargo until noon (Rome time) on July 7. CWN will respect that embargo.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

Justice Supplied

Well, the New York Times is at it again.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth has yet to subside over the recent rulings of the SCOTUS. In today's weepy editorial titled "Justice Denied," the writer bemoans,

"Time and again the [Roberts] court has ruled, almost always 5-4, in favor of corporations and powerful interests while slamming the courthouse door on individuals and ideals that truly need the court’s shelter."

Au contraire.

For fifty years the Supreme Court has been slamming the courthouse door on individuals (unborn babies) and ideals (morality and a belief in God) that truly need the court's shelter.

In 1948, voluntary religious instruction was outlawed in public schools. In 1962, school prayer went. In 1963, voluntary daily reading from the Bible was declared unconstitutional. In 1973, women were granted an unrestricted right to kill the unborn. In 1980, a Kentucky law that called for posting the Ten Commandments on classroom walls was overturned because the Commandments serve "no secular purpose." In 2000, a Nebraska statute criminalizing partial birth abortion was held to be unconstitutional. In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law forbidding same-sex relations, and in the words of dissenting Justice Scalia, "signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."

It is only in the last two years that the Court has exercised any sense of judicial restraint. But the NYT misinterprets this to be a "radical new court" with a "sharp shift to the right."

Well, I suppose the addition of Roberts and Alito constitutes a sharp shift to the right -- but from way out in left field, that leaves us somewhere near center.

Back to "Justice Denied,"

"Chief Justice Roberts said that he wanted to promote greater consensus, but he is presiding over a court that is deeply riven."

Don't buy into the rhetoric. The Supreme Court has been deeply riven for decades. Only, whereas it was once split 7-2 and 6-3, liberal/conservative, it is now split down the middle, 4-4 with Kennedy's swing vote making 9.

"The flip side of the court’s boundless solicitude for the powerful was its often contemptuous attitude toward common folks looking for justice."

Pure bunk. It was the powerful elites in Seattle who were (rightfully) held in contempt (cf., More on the Gang of 5), and it was the "common folks" of America whose desire to ban the barbaric procedure of killing half-born babies was upheld (cf., The Gang of 5).

What moved thee, O Lord?

What moved thee, O Lord,
to suffer for my sake?
I am only a poor sinner;
the worst thou didst make.

Bleeding through thy skin,
and pores aflame --
the misery begun,
for this thou came.

Stripped and bound,
scourged almost dead.
Lacerated flesh --
O, how thou bled!

Still, taken aside
mocked and scorn;
my sins the weight
forcing in each thorn.

Embracing The Cross,
Sacred Heart enflamed;
collapsing now thrice --
my guilt thou claimed.

Nails driven in
and left to die,
my Blessed Lord,
I didst crucify.

Hanging from a cross,
Christ derided and defiled;
I weep for my sins --
a sinner reconciled.

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Quote of the day

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith, becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American… There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” —Theodore Roosevelt, 1907




Who makes more money: PP or the Vatican?

If you guessed the Vatican, I'm afraid you're wrong.

The Vatican's budget for last year was announced today, showing a surplus of a little under $3.3 million in 2006. Total revenues for the Vatican came to $306.1 million, just exceeding outlays of $302.9 million.

Setting the Vatican's balance sheet alongside Planned Parenthood's promptly settles any question of which organization generates more cash. The most recent report from the nation's largest abortion provider reveals revenues of $902.8 million from 2005-2006. For the 34th year in a row Planned Parenthood reported "excess revenue" (i.e., profit) -- this last time to the tune of about $56 million.

It is also interesting to note that roughly 1/3 of Planned Parenthood's income comes from you and me. Taxpayer funding totalled $305.3 million last year (up from $272.7 million the year before); which means the United States Government now matches almost dollar-for-dollar to Planned Parenthood what is generated world-wide for the Vatican.

Now get back to work. Uncle Sam has good need of your wages.

More on the Gang of 5

Last Thursday the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down yet another high-profile, 5-4 split decision. You know the split: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy -- Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens.

Another conservative victory.

The case, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, was brought about because of Seattle's policy of busing students to a public school not of their choice, based purely on race.

You see, Seattle elites have the noble task of ensuring all public high schools meet diversity quotas. If they don't -- well, Caucasians from a "white-heavy" school must be bused elsewhere.

The SCOTUS correctly noted that such a practice is nothing short of racism.

As the Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Of course, this is all just too much for the New York Times. In this editorial, the author bemoans, "the court’s radical new majority turned its back on that proud tradition [of Brown v. Board of Education]."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Supreme Court has not retreated one inch from the Brown decision. But don't take my word for it. Read the concurring opinion (page 49) written by the only racial minority on the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas.

In it, Thomas makes some fantastic points, including these:

"Every time the government uses racial criteria to ‘bring the races together,’ someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race."

"It is the height of arrogance for Members of this Court to assert blindly that their motives are better than others."

"Indeed, if our history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories."


But my personal favorite is this one, referring to the dissent of Justice Breyer:

"Justice Breyer’s good intentions, which I do not doubt, have the shelf life of Justice Breyer’s tenure"