The Polish New Liturgical Movement blog and later the main New Liturgical Movement blog have published a clarification from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei dated 20th January, 2010, which states:
Easter Triduum in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite
1. If there is no other possibility, because, for instance, in all churches of a diocese the liturgies of the Sacred Triduum are already being celebrated in the Ordinary Form, the liturgies of the Sacred Triduum may, in the same church in which they are already celebrated in the Ordinary Form, be additionally celebrated in the Extraordinary Form, if the local ordinary allows.
Celebrating a normal scheduled Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite
2. A Mass in the usus antiquior may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the Ordinary Form. The question contextualizes that in many churches Sunday Masses are more or less scheduled continually, leaving free only very incovenient mid afternoon slots, but this is merely context, the question posed being general. The answer leaves the matter to the prudent judgement of the parish priest, and emphasises the right of a stable group to assist at Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
Scheduling Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite in the absence of a request from the faithful celebrated even for those unfamiliar with the Extraordinary Form
3. A parish priest may schedule a public Mass in the Extraordinary Form on his own accord (i.e. without the request of a group of faithful) for the benefit of the faithful including those unfamiliar with the Usus Antiquior. The response of the Commission here is identical to no. 2.
The use of the 1970 Calendar, Readings and Prefaces Forbidden in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite
4. The calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Missale Romanum may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Missale Romanum in Masses in the Extraordinary Form.
Readings in the Vernacular in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite
5. While the liturgical readings (Epistle and Gospel) themselves have to be read by the priest (or deacon/subdeacon) as foreseen by the rubrics, a translation to the vernacular may afterwards be read also by a layman.
Laudetur Jesus Christus in aeternum! Amen!
.jpg)
17 comments:
These clarifications from the Pont. Commissio are long overdue and, in point of fact, still require to be issued in a definitive form such as used to be used by the Congregation of Rites and is, we may say, still used by the Congregation of Divine Worship through 'Notitiae'. When is the clarifaction document from the Holy Father, so long ago promised, going to be issued? When is either the Pont. Commission or the S. Congregatio going to begin making definitive and authoritative determinations on these questions as they arise?
Am I alone in thinking that the Holy Father looks thinner at the meeting with the Irish Bishops?
JSB
I am very pleased with the clarifications except number 5. How can they permit non-clerics to take part in the Latin Mass in this way? Someone should appeal to the Pope directly over the heads of these people!
We have got to save the Latin Mass from the new Bugninis!
I guess I will confine myself to #5 also. Theres really a whole bunch of stuff going on here.
#1 There is a difference between the Reading and the translation - one is part of the rite and one is not.
#2 The translation comes after the Reading and is not simultaneous like commentary was in the sixties as if its a tv voiceover.
#3 The Reading can be in Latin or in English.
#4 The Reading in English dont need to be translated but then it should be done by the Priests.
#5 The Reading in Latin can have a translation after it but the translation isnt part of the rite.
#6 (because its not part of the rite) the translation can be read either by the Priest or by the non-ordained.
My take on it is that there is nothing really new here but two points. #1 That the Reading can be in Latin or English. #2 That a non-ordained can read the translation.
None of these sounds like good news to me. Sounds to me like its just one more step to a Novus Novus Ordo or maybe a Vetus Novus Ordo.
In parts of French-speaking Belgium it is a long-standing tradition that a layman reads the vernacular of the Epistle / Gospel after the priest has first read them in the Lingua Ecclesia. I have personally seen this done.
I read it to mean that if the epistle and gospel have been read, or sung, in Latin by the priest, then they may afterward, ( for instance immediately before the sermon), be read aloud to the congregation by a layman. I see this being useful for instance when Holy Mass is being celebrated by a priest who does not speak, or read, English, but where the congregation is mainly English speaking. Also as I understand it those English readings are strictly outside the liturgy and are there to assist those who do not have a missal before them, ( and I think one would not stand for the gospel reading in English and that the readings would not be done from the altar.)
Finally some word from Rome! So many half empty OF Masses but no time slot available for the EF! Now no more!!!
How many times have the faithful been deprived of the Holy Triduum in the EF because there is already one OR TWO of each ceremony in the Church!
Is there nothing the Bishops can now do to stop the EF in their Dioceses?
I remember the 1984 document Quattuor Abhinc Annos said that the new lectionary could be used. Thank God the madness is over!
I dont really understand why Rome would permit laymen to participate in the EF in this way. It looks to me like a complete innovation.
A personal view is that these are mostly a pleasant surprise. It's nice that the PCED thinks it's okay to substitute a Gregorian Rite Mass for a regular Mass or doubling up on Easter ceremonies but I'd be even happier if they enforced what they call the right of the faithful to hear Mass in the Gregorian Rite and left the scheduling to the local authorities. The problem is rarely scheduling but frequently permission. I thought that the 1970 readings were permitted but I'm glad they were never used or even discussed anywhere I've been to a Gregorian Rite Mass. I know a few people who would love to do the readings at a Gregorian Rite Mass but most of them just want to push the laity on the Gregorian Rite so that is can't escape the modernist fashion. Will we have a clarification on Altar Girls next?
Personally, I would be utterly opposed to the kind of innovation such as is spoken of in point 5. No doubt it wasn't foreseen in the rubrics but it runs entirely counter to the spirit of the Traditional Form. The clergy have a role in the Liturgy and the laity have a role in the Liturgy. Those roles should not be confused. I would walk out of any Traditional Mass that had a layperson reading the lessons, even if that was after they had been read in Latin my the celebrant.
JSB
I'm not sure what is envisaged here. I don't see that this is a universal provision at all. I wouldn't regard this as a serous problem.
Is this the clarificatory that we were supposed to get a couple of years ago? Some great stuff in there really. TWO Easter Triduum ceremonies. Obvious to the good guys but will anything change with the bad? Rescheduling? I guess it depends on the figures but again its one for the good guys but nothing to put the bad guys into the game. Forbidden to mix texts? Great. Ministers of the Word at the EF? Huh?
I feel that there are many good people attending the Latin Mass and not all of them are comfortable serving Mass (especially if they are women) so I feel that this may be the Holy Father's way of reaching out to those people and allowing them to make a contribution. Thank you Holy Father!
Wonderful news. Brick by brick!
I think that these clarifications are welcome but should be made universal. We have had a Mass every Thursday evening because there was no other Mass at that time but if the Vatican could have told our Priest of the changes then maybe he would have arranged Mass on a Sunday. It would be way easier for Father to use the same readings at all the Masses too. I don't see why he can't be allowed to do that.
My own view is very favourable towards the first four and very unfavourable towards the fifth.
I could sympathise with the desire to unify the community at Easter - would we have two Chrism Masses? - but my own Parish will probably have two of each Easter ceremony in each Church just to accommodate the numbers. If (and it's a big IF) there was a valid demand for the Easter ceremonies in the Gregorian Rite, it is good that the PCED supports it.
What on earth is the logic behind Ministers of the Word in the Gregorian Rite? I'm baffled.
However, I can see the argument in favour of the newer lectionary for the sake of Priests who have to celebrate in both forms in quick succession. Unfortunately, that would mean a unified calendar. I don't really see how the newer lectionary would work except by a universal abolition of the traditional calendar.
The additional prefaces don't seem to me to add anything, any more than the Gallican Prefaces do. Will it be permissable to use the Gregorian Rite prefaces in the Novus Ordo? That way madness lies unless somebody sits down and writes an authoritative document setting out just what is and what is not permitted throughout the Church.
As far as I can see, at the moment, we are on the verge of the Gregorian Rite being as random as the Novus Ordo.
Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditium est!
Nolumus Mutari!
God bless you!
p.s.
Interesting discussions also on 'Rorari Caeli' and 'NLM'.
If there is about 1 Sunday diocesan EF Mass for every 100,000 Catholics and if you assume a rate of practice of 30% and say that there is a 1% of Catholics interested in the EF that would meant that each and every EF Mass should have a congregation of 300. Do they? Look at the EF Mass in your own Diocese. There is about 12 out of a Parish of 25,000. That's about 0.05%. Do you seriously expect every Parish to provide a different Mass to suit the preferences of every 0.05% of the Parish?
They always have the translation in Harrington Street at the Latin Mass. No translation today in Kildare but we all had our missals. This is not needed and not wanted.
How does all this stand in light of comments made by Cardinal Levada at the opening of the FSSP Seminary Chapel?
Post a Comment