Fr. Z got a hold of a memorandum (currently not posted on the diocesan website) from my diocese's Office of Divine Worship to priests of the diocese concerning Summorum Pontificum and the celebration on the mass using the 1962 missal. While I've generally agreed with Fr. Z's writings on the Motu Proprio, I disagree with his take on this statement.
First off, he emphasizes that the bishop's signature is not on the document, which suggests... what? That the office is issuing norms without the bishop's approval? Is he implying that this allegedly anti-traditional mass memo is solely the work of the Director of the Office of Divine Worship? That's a problematic interpretation since the document repeatedly refers to Bishop Jenky's intentions, expectations and concrete plans.
Second, he interprets the statement in an extremely negative light. Granted, there are bishops on record with much more jubilant receptions of Summorum Pontificum. Still, Fr. Z overlooks the generally positive indications in the memorandum:
- The number of parishes regularly celebrating the traditional mass is increasing from two to five. If these parishes are well distributed, that means a large portion of the diocese will have much easier access to the 1962 mass than before.
- The bishop will provide training for priests who wish to celebrate mass in the extraordinary form Fr. Z does say that's positive, but it casts much of what he criticizes in a different light. He comes down hard on the diocese for suggesting priests should demonstrate competence in saying the traditional mass, but in light of the availability of training, that's not so bad, is it?
The last point is something on which I disagree with Fr. Z. He tends to take offense when bishops suggest that priests who want to celebrate the traditional mass should demonstrate that they can do it. While I understand that could be and in some instances is being used as a foil by unsympathetic bishops, I think it makes sense as a general rule for two reasons. First, priests don't get trained on the traditional mass in seminary. Second, if you hope (as Fr. Z does, and as I do) that the traditional rite will have a "gravitational pull" on the newer rite, fostering a greater sense of reverence towards the liturgy, you want to make sure that the priests offering the traditional mass are doing it right. You want people experiencing the extraordinary rite to have a good experience of it.
I remember an older priest mentioning that many priests used to say the old Mass quickly by only saying the first word of each line of the eucharistic prayer. Is that what we want the result of SP to be? Is that even a valid mass? As long as a bishop is going to provide the training (which, according to the memo, our bishop plans to do) what is the problem with asking the priests to demonstrate competence.
Third, I disagree with the exception Fr. Z takes to the language about most Catholics not experiencing any change. With all of the media misreporting about "undoing Vatican II" it's fair for the bishop to want to reassure people that if they like the Mass they have, they needn't worry about it being taken away from them. That wasn't a very nice thing to do forty years ago and it wouldn't be a nice thing to do today, even to correct past wrongs. Even if we hope that increased celebration of the traditional mass will eventually change the way the modern liturgy is celebrated, that change is supposed to be gradual, right?
This is not to say that I find the Peoria memo wholly positive. My concern is that by concentrating the traditional rite to a set number of parishes, the diocese is not de-ghettoizing it; instead it's merely increasing the size of the ghetto. That's clearly not the intention of Summorum Pontificum and I hope it's not the intention of my diocese.
Even there, however, the situation of the priests in the diocese needs to be taken into account. We have many pastors with 3-4 parishes whose boundaries cover hundreds of square miles of territory. These priests have weekly mass schedules that push the limits of canon law. With that in mind, it must be noted that the norms contained in the memo are at least partially meant to address concerns that were raised at the diocesan Presbyteral Council meeting.
Fr. Z is unhappy that the memo asks priests to refer small groups of parishioners requesting the traditional mass to the existing regular celebrations. Perhaps he didn't notice it, but that part of the memo is specifically addressed to "Pastors who are unable to offer Mass according to the 1962 Missal when approached by parishioners." That implies that pastors who can offer Mass according to the 1962 Missal should try to accommodate those parishioners. It also implies that pastors who cannot offer it might consider taking advantage of the training offered by the diocese so that they can.
Below the jump, I'm going to post the text of the memo so folks can read it for themselves without Fr. Z's emphasis and remarks. As an aside, anybody who knows Fr. Deptula (I suppose that even though I'm not exactly a journalist, I should disclose that I worked for him as a sacristan for three years) might be amused at Fr. Z's portrayal of him as Defender of the Abusive Modernist Liturgy.
Like I said, Fr. Z has a great blog and I appreciate the work he's done to promote the traditional mass and Summorum Pontificum. However, I don't think it does much good to harass a bishop and a diocese that prove willing to use time and resources to expand the availability of the traditional mass and to train priests to offer it.
607 NE Madison Avenue
Peoria, Illinois 61603
Telephone: 309-671-1561
Fax: 309-671-5079
To: Priests of the Diocese of Peoria
From: Fr. Stanley Deptula
Date: September 10, 2007
Re: Celebrations of the "tridentine" Mass
On September 14, 2007, the Motu Proprio of the Holy Father regarding the celebration of the Mass according to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite will take effect. While Bishop Jenky expects that the vast majority of our parishes and parishioners will not experience any changes in their celebration of Mass, after discussions at the recent Presbyteral Council some concerns remain among the priests and faithful of our diocese.
For Lay Faithful desiring to participate in Mass celebrated according the Missal of 1962 (the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or the so-called "Tridentine" Mass):
Currently, two parishes in our diocese offer the Traditional Mass every Sunday. By the end of the calendar year, we expect that five parishes throughout our diocese will offer this Mass regularly and at a variety of times for the convenience of the faithful. A full listing of these parishes will be available soon.
For Lay Faithful desiring to participate in Mass celebrated according to the Missal of 2000 (the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite or the so-called "Novus Ordo" Mass):
The "Novus Ordo" Mass is the ordinary way of celebrating Mass. Parishioners need not fear that the Traditional Mass will be imposed on them or that they will be "surprised" by a pastor arbitrarily choosing to change the way that Mass is celebrated in a parish. Most Catholics in our Diocese will not experience any change in they way they experience Sunday Mass because of this Motu Proprio.
For Pastors desiring to celebrate Mass according to the Missal of 1962:
While the Motu Proprio gives permission for the Private Celebration of Masses according to the Traditional Rite, it also states repeatedly the Bishop’s obligation to safeguard the celebration of the Sacraments in his diocese. In coming statements, Bishop Jenky will provide means for priests who wish to learn the linguistic and ritual requirements of the 1962 Missal.
As the "chief moderator" of the liturgy in this Diocese, and in accord with Motu Proprio, the Bishop will not allow any priest to celebrate the extraordinary form without his first demonstrating a working understanding of Latin and a knowledge of the rubrics of the 1962 Missal. Pastoral sense and theological principal make it clear that priests ought not to celebrate a Mass, even privately, if they are unable to ofter the Mass properly and reverently. No priest may impose his personal ritual preference on his parish.
For Pastors who are unable to offer Mass according to the 1962 Missal when approached by parishioners: The Holy Father asks pastors to offer Mass according to the Traditional Rite when a stable group of parishioners request. A number of Cardinals have commented that a "group" of parishioners could mean anywhere from 40 – 300 parishioners. All of the requests that have come to the attention of the Office of Divine Worship or the Bishop’s Office have been from individuals or very small groups. Pastors should refer these small groups or individuals to the various, regular celebrations of the Traditional Mass that are offered around our diocese.
If any priests do not have a copy of the actual document released by the Holy See and would like one, please contact Laurie at the Chancery—309-671-1561.
Wow, Fr. Stanley as a Defender of the Abusive Modernist Liturgy? I guess Shea's "subtract 50 IQ points when MSM talks about religion" isn't limited just to the MSM.
(This is the same Fr. Stanley who would go out to the campus bars in a cassock).
Fr. Z is unhappy that the memo asks priests to refer small groups of parishioners requesting the traditional mass to the existing regular celebrations. Perhaps he didn't notice it, but that part of the memo is specifically addressed to "Pastors who are unable to offer Mass according to the 1962 Missal when approached by parishioners." That implies that pastors who can offer Mass according to the 1962 Missal should try to accommodate those parishioners. It also implies that pastors who cannot offer it might consider taking advantage of the training offered by the diocese so that they can.
There is another alternative, namely that the pastor unable to celebrate the traditional Mass himself make the parish available to another priest who can. I think that is what Fr. Z. took exception to. If I live in a parish, and a certain Fr. X (perhaps a retired priest) is willing and able to offer the traditional Mass there, well, why should I have to drive 30 minutes or more to an existing parish at which the traditional Mass is already offered? The MP doesn't say that the pastor should "willingly accede" to my request (assuming that "I" am a continuously-existing coetus -- by the way, which Cardinals say that the coetus could be 40-300 people?) by offering the Mass himself; it only says that he should "willingly accede."
As someone who has experience firsthand in this Diocese and the TLM, Bishop Jenky is not a friend of the TLM period.
It came and went, came and went.. We went in spurts for years. Lastly it fell apart when Msgr Rholfs abrubptly left and Fr Miller was laicized and Fr Reese left for Chicago.
Many of the solid priests in the Peoria Diocese were sent away . Everything that Archbishop Meyers had done to create a solid liturgy was undone overnight. Just go to St Annes in Peoria and watch as they arm flap like a bunch of protestants. Take a look at the Protestant Cursillo movement that has watered down our church teaching. Neocat way thats active in the Diocese.. lets hold hands and wrap ourselves around the altar.
The list goes on and on...
Ask Bishop Jenky why Father Driscoll is basically cloistered at OSF and isnt allowed to celebrate the TLM in a parish.
Is Msgr Soseman going to offer the TLM anytime soon? I should hope so.. he knows it well....
assuming that "I" am a continuously-existing coetus -- by the way, which Cardinals say that the coetus could be 40-300 people?)
Why would you assume that? I have seen no authoritative ruling on what coetus means. Fr. Z seems to think it's three, but he hasn't referenced where he gets that from (correct me if I'm wrong)
I don't know which cardinals have given those numbers. But reasonably speaking, should a priest schedule a new mass to accomodate a single family? Obviously not. So where is the line? Absent an authoritative ruling (which will probably come eventually since there's so much confusion about this), bishops and diocese are trying to figure this out from themselves.
I like your idea of having a retired priest come say the Mass, but that's probably not a realistic option for many parishes. Further, I don't think it's the best interpretation to assume the statement from Peoria excludes that possibility. That's the problem with Fr. Z's take: he assumes hostility towards the old mass, citing a few problems with wording in an otherwise very positive statement. We could call it an hermeneutic of suspicion, in fact. I don't think that's called for.
Zig: I don't know the details of the situations you bring up, but let's assume they're true. The statement from the diocese is still almost entirely positive. The number of regular traditional masses is more than doubling, training is being offered and the bishop encourages pastors to accommodate those seeking out the traditional mass. What is the negative part of this statement other than it comes from a bishop you don't like?
(This is the same Fr. Stanley who would go out to the campus bars in a cassock).
I hope nobody out there misinterprets that!
I agree that the Diocese of Peoria is not meeting the Motu Proprio with the spirit which Pope Benedict issued it. The question no one seems to be asking is: Why?
Secondly, can any lay person or priest name ANYTHING at all the present Bishop has done to curtail "deformations" in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, referred to by the Holy Father? Can anyone give even one example as to how the Diocese has promoted the use of Latin or Gregorian Chant in the Sacred Litugy in the Ordinary Form, as envision by the Second Vatican Council?
Yes, there is MUCH to be done in this Diocese, not only in making available the Extraordinary Form, but also in following the wishes of the Church in the Ordinary Form.
I agree that the Diocese of Peoria is not meeting the Motu Proprio with the spirit which Pope Benedict issued it.
Again, what is that based on? The 150% increase in regular traditional masses, the appeal to pastors to accommodate parishioners desiring the traditional rite if they can, or the offer of training to priests who want training?
Or is it because you don't like Bishop Jenky? If that's your reason, fine. But don't say it's because of this document.
Since you invite further analysis, I will offer exactly that:
Article 5 of the MP says "In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish..."
Peoria says: "A number of Cardinals have commented that a "group" of parishioners could mean anywhere from 40 – 300 parishioners."
Father Z claims that even in the original Latin, there is no such number attached to making a decision to offer the Extraordinary Form. I think it is clear that Peoria is more restrictive than the Vatican intends.
Furthermore, the above quote from the MP plainly states that the Extraordinary Form needs to harmonize with parish life. Meanwhile, Peoria says that "Parishioners need not fear that the Traditional Mass will be imposed on them or that they will be "surprised" by a pastor arbitrarily choosing to change the way that Mass is celebrated in a parish." and "No priest may impose his personal ritual preference on his parish."
Could it be that the Pope trusts his priests to make sound pastoral judgments, while the Bishop does not? It sounds that way to me!
Finally, the MP states: Art 2.For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.
Art 5. Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded."
Yet Peoria reiterates the obvious and goes further:
"the Bishop will not allow any priest to celebrate the extraordinary form without his first demonstrating a working understanding of Latin and a knowledge of the rubrics of the 1962 Missal."
Again, the Pope seems to trust his priests to use sound pastoral judgment and LEARN Latin sufficiently to say Mass. It is implied that the Bishop wants to test and certify (ie., give permission to) priests to say Mass in another language. As Father Z. mentions... Will this then lead to a test and a certification for any priest to say Mass in any language besides English? The MP does not require any such supervision and scrutiny.
So.. have I been specific enough?
But reasonably speaking, should a priest schedule a new mass to accomodate a single family? Obviously not.
Well, a priest shouldn't do it to "accommodate" a single family, I guess, but there's no reason that he can't do it if he receives a request from a single family and can fit it into his schedule. There's also no reason that he can't do it on his own initiative -- a "coetus" isn't necessary.
The point is that it is up to the pastor and not the bishop.
Though Fr. Z did not mention it here, he has often mentioned that his problem with making Priests demonstrate their knowledge of Latin before celebrating the EF is that this is a double-standard! Priests DO NOT have to demonstrate a knowledge of Spanish before celebrating in Spanish, nor do foreign Priests have to demonstrate that they know English before celebrating the NO Mass is English. Your argument is wrong because the Bishop does not want to make sure the Priest can say the Tridentine Mass, he only says he wishes to make sure the Priest has sufficient knowledge of Latin. This is a double-standard and a foil being used by Bishops to stall the Extraordinary form.
Peoria says that "Parishioners need not fear that the Traditional Mass will be imposed on them or that they will be "surprised" by a pastor arbitrarily choosing to change the way that Mass is celebrated in a parish."
Traditio seem to be criticizing my Bishop for reassuring his flock that there will be no surprises.
I never expected the Welborn-Armchair-Liturgy-Critics to be aiming their sights at my my diocese. I think this is why Mark Shea said something to the effect that the worst enemies of the TLM is it's rabid devotees.
I hope nobody out there misinterprets that!
One of the things that really annoys me about the militant TLM group is the way that they will tear down any number of exceptional priests to make their point. Fr. Stanley is, in my opinion, one of the best of the best. It struck me (one morning that I made it to 6:30am mass at St. Matt's) that all of the tearing down of the NO is offensive those of us who know Fr. Mark, who celebrates a completely reverent NO mass. And, I find it remarkably offensive when someone claims that all the good priests have left my diocese. If you don't like your own parish priest, fine. If you don't like our bishop, fine. But, please show a little respect for the men in black who are serving my diocese with their lives.
TJB - I do not argue that some bishops are using that as a foil, but I don't see how you can say that about Bishop Jenky when he is going to provide means to train priests. If he doesn't come through, or if it turns out to be a 4 year course with a 3-hour comprehensive exam at the end, then yes, cry foul. But until then isn't it charitable to take him at his word?
The point is that it is up to the pastor and not the bishop.
And what in the Peoria memo impedes a pastor who can offer the mass properly from doing so?
And what in the Peoria memo impedes a pastor who can offer the mass properly from doing so?
The suggestion that he cannot "arbitrarily" decide to offer one form of the Mass over another, or that he may not "impose his personal ritual preference on his parish." Suppose Fr. X. is pastor of a parish with three Masses on Sunday, 8:00 am, 10:00 am, 12:00 noon. There is no reason why he must offer the ordinary form at all of these Masses; one of the Masses could be in the extraordinary form.
There are some very SOLID priests in the Diocese. I never intended to imply otherwise. However, they truly are in the minority.
The younger generation of priests truly is attempting to reform the reform and provide us with a solid liturgy.
But you will notice that MANY, lets say more traditional priests for lack of better words, have either A) been asked to leave or B) have left because of the limitations the Bishop has placed upon them.
I do like Bishop Jenky, he is a jolly, friendly man, behind closed doors he can be quite the wolf in sheep's clothing. He has had some very good homilies and is a good writer. However, he has made some questionable moves both in the Chancery and Diocesan wide. Some things he waters down, others he restricts. In my opinion he isnt consistant and the laity know it. At least in the city of Peoria many feel this way.
I am interested to know what you heard in your area about why Msgr Rholfs, Msgr Swetland, Fr Clemens, Fr Campbell, Fr Reese... all left or were asked to leave the Diocese. Evidently they were all radicals? Ironically they all had above a solid liturgy, were solid theologically and are Holy priests who brought so much fruit to our area.