In response to certain questions that have been asked about the use of the Latin Mass in its Extraordinary Form in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, Monsignor Jeffrey Steenson, Ordinary, issued this statement:
“We rejoice in the liturgical richness of the Catholic Church. We in the Anglican tradition certainly welcome the Holy Father’s concern that the Mass be understood as a living, continuous tradition. The communio sanctorum compels us to read and engage with the Church’s tradition with a hermeneutic of continuity.
“The particular mission of the Ordinariate is to bring into the fuller life of the Catholic Church those enduring elements of the Anglican liturgical patrimony which are oriented to Catholic truth. This liturgical identity seeks to balance two historic principles — that Christian prayer and proclamation should be offered in the vernacular and that the language of worship should be sacral. This is what Anglicans understand when they speak of the prayer book tradition.
“The liturgy of the Ordinariate is superintended by an inter-dicasterial working group (of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament). At the time the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter was established, the Congregation for Divine Worship provided important guidance for our liturgical use: The Book of Divine Worship Rite I should be amended to bring it into conformity with the Roman Missal 3rd edition, particularly the words of Consecration. For those congregations that prefer a contemporary idiom, the Roman Missal 3rd edition could be used.
“We have therefore asked that the congregations of the Ordinariate follow this direction. Some of our clergy want to learn also how to celebrate according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. They are certainly encouraged to do so, under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and under the supervision of the local bishop, to assist in those stable communities that use the Extraordinary Form. But as the Extraordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities. The Ordinariate will remain focused on bringing Christians in the Anglican tradition into full communion with the Catholic Church. We also are pleased that the Church has provided for the continuing use of the Extraordinary Form, particularly as a pastoral response to traditional Catholics, and regard all of this as a well-ordered symphony of praise to the Blessed Trinity.”
IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT. The Anglicans never went through the postcomciliar hootenanny insanity. Interesting that at one of the most successful Extraordinary Form parishes, SACFSSP.com, the choirmaster, Mr. Jeffery Morse has a primarily English Catholic cultural orientation.
Right. They went into heresy instead…
Makes a great deal of sense. The Anglican Use Provision within the Latin Rite is almost entirely about allowing former Anglican Protestants who enter the Catholic Church the ability to retain their historic liturgy based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer using the approved Catholic Book of Divine Worship.
It makes absolutely no sense to make use of the Anglican Use Provision and then demand the EF Mass. If one wishes to attend an EF Mass there is already ample opportunity without adding complexity and confusion to the Anglican Use Provision.
Pray tell, how do you define “ample opportunity”? Where can the faithful attend daily Tridentine Masses?
Where can they receive other traditional Sacraments? Where is there more than one parish that ministers to traditional Catholics?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
don’t forget, KENNETH, you may attend a daily tridentine mass at MOST HOLY REDEEMER in the castro district of san francisco.
i found this little gem on the website of the archdicoese of s.f., and someone said she almost fainted when she checvked it out and it turned out to be true.
(the priest who says most of the TLM masses here in our archdiocese lives in the rectory of most holy redeemer for many years now, which is why the tridentine mass is said there easch morning at 9:30)
This may surprise you, but I would have no trouble attending a Traditional Mass at Holy Redeemer as long as I believed I could do so safely. Why are you so intent on pushing that mostly sodomite parish?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
KEN, you are a hoot!
“safely” – do you think everyone would be after your bod?
“pushing” – i find it amusing that the one parish everyone loves to hate has the TLM on a daily basis.
“sodomite parish” – and this from a guy who attends a parish that the local bishop has declared to be non-catholic.
Should this supprise anyone ? I wonder what there thoughts are about parishes performing liturgical dance, baloon and clown masses. First of all a priest does not need the approval from the local bishop.
The Anglican-Mass people do not mess with their Mass. Such things would not even be considered. They are like the Eastern rite Catholics and the Orthodox Christians who do not mess with their Masses. They have too must reverece for holy tradition, so that changes are made very slowly if at all. The Sarum rite is another beautiful English tradition. It was one of or the original Catholic Mass in England.
I am not saying that there should not be room in the Post-vatican II Masses for cultural difference. On the contrary, indeed there should be, but they should all be according to the rubrics and the General Instruction to the Roman Missal (the GIRM) and traditional hymns from those cultures should be used according to the Vatican. Any newer hymns should be orthodox in teaching (have right Catholic teaching).
Actually, this view is that of most bishops in America regarding the TLM. The Holy Father is wrong when stressing that Vatican II was not a “rupture” with the Church as it had always existed. In fact, all is different. Any priest wishing to celebrate the Latin Mass does so at his peril, in most diocese.
CHRIS, no you are in charge of deciding when the supreme pontiff is right or wrong?
hurray for you.
as for your comment: “Any priest wishing to celebrate the Latin Mass does so at his peril, in most diocese,” it’s nuts also.
here in the archdiocese of san francisco archbishop niedcerauer specifially AKSWED priets to learn latin and the rubrics of the TLM, so there would be more availability.
max, as I understand it, your last statement is true, BUT. You have to look at the emphasis, which was on “learn Latin.” Abp. Niederauer told the priests they should not celebrate in Latin unless they are fluent in the language, able to read, write and converse in it with ease. The priest who told me said the interlinear text was to make it as difficult as possible.
The bishops probably want the Traditional Latin Mass priests to learn Latin very fluently because they will be the ones who become the next Canon Lawyers and interpretors of Church documents, etc. We need men who are very proficient in Latin in the Latin Rite Church to help form and write all the documents, interpret them, etc. Any Pope has to be proficient in Latin along with any other language or languages he knows. It makes sense to see that they keep it up and become proficient in it, or it can be a waster of time and money.
Make that “interpreters”. Now you see why some should be proficient in Latin? Some of us are not so proficient in English anymore. (Lots of Laughs.) It can have it handicaps.
That is “waste of time”, too. Now I am off of this article for good before I make a complete fool of myself if I have not already done so.
archbishop niederauer didn’t ask that our priests become fluent, but just learn enough to know what they were saying when they said mass.
our pastor told us about the archbishop’s request, but at the time, he (the pastor) was busy trying to become competent in the new translation in english, which is closer to the latin.
if that makes any sense…it’s been a long day.
what a sensible man.
of course the TLM is not part of anglican tradition, even as the TLM is not part of the syro-malabar tradition, or the byzatine catholic tradition, etc.
For once I agree with you max, and I am a loyal TLM adherent, but would attend a Anglican Ordinate Mass if there was one near me just to see what it is like. I believe this article tried provoke us Traditionalist, I see no controversy
I believe, unless things have changed, that you will find the Anglican Catholic Mass is much closer to the Tridentine than it is the Novus Ordo.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I agree that the TLM is not a priority for the Anglican Ordinariate nor should it be. Just as the Novus Ordo should not be a priority for the FSSP or other traditionalis Order of Priest.
The Holy Father created the Ordinariate to promote the Anglican heritage. The Priest of the Ordinariate are nof forbiden to say the TLM and are encouraged to do so.
I love the TLM and the Anglican Use Mass.
Or in less folksy English: I do too.
good one, ANNE T.!
Sometimes I think self-described “traditionalists” simply want to whine about things and play the pseudo-martyrs.
Franklin, not really we whine about the destruction of the Church in the name of tolerance, though this article has nothing to do with that. I grow tired modernist with their rainbow flags, mantra of diversity and tolerance, ugly as sin parishes, and host of other things that has stripped Catholics of their identity
In case you haven’t noticed, traditionalist have plenty to complain about; and, if Obama is re-elected, we may not be pseudo-martyrs very long, but real ones!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fishere
Not all of them, Franklyn, not all of them. Be careful of steorotyping any group. Some of them had and have some legitimate complaints. In many cases some things were changed too fast and too much. Some things should not have been changed at all. Even a friend of mine who prefers the Post-vatican II Mass just found a heretical hymn in one of the newer hymnbooks. That is not to say that all the more modern hymns are heretical, but some are.
“max”: Such passion for error — historically, the Anglican liturgy, and Anglican orders, were considered invalid by the Catholic Church. While there is supposed to be some continuity of their “tradition,” the Anglican mass is not said — a valid Catholic mass is necessary. Also, Anglican “priests” were never recognized as priests by the Catholic Church, and were required to go through a Catholic ordination process. Of course the TLM was not “integral to the Anglican patrimony” as all Anglican masses/services were invalid (and the TLM is always valid). Anglican priest are Catholic priests, and, as such, have the right the traditions of the Church, including the right to say the TLM. The fear is that the language of the good monsignor really means “forgetaboutit” to all priests wanting to regularly say the TLM (within the Anglican “tradition” — whatever that means). He is already saying “hands off” anything that makes the Anglican “mass” anything other than almost like it was (which was never recognized as valid by Catholics). A central problem with the Catholic Church now, and one that is widely recognized and commented upon, is the multiplicity of “traditions,” whether the use of Heinz-57 variety of languages, dancers, clowns, children, tambourines, etc. The Church leadership is simply incapable of saying what the Church is, how it worship, and the like. The comment about the Pope does not mean to state that he is wrong in what he said (and in any event any Pope can be disagreed with, except in very narrow circumstances), only that he is wrong in the inherent expectations that the Catholic Church is working together, avoiding a hermenuitic of rupture. In fact, the continued, and growing, hostility to any traditional, most specifically the Latin Mass, is patent (and also well documented in current literature). The unwarranted “special” requirements that many bishops placed on the ability of any priest to say the Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum, one of which was noted in the posts above, give ample evidence that the Church leaders are simply not going to let tradition have any role in the future of the Church, save in pockets here and there. You are simply delusional if you think that a priest that wants to say the TLM in any diocese will not face opposition from almost any bishop. Summorum Pontificum, the motu proprio of the Vicar of Christ, has been completely disrespected by Catholic bishops. (Even “conservative” literature describes the litany of bishop-required “traning” demands, permission procedures, outright prohibitions, and the like, employed to retard priests from saying the TLM.) But, of course, they do this with many, many things that recent popes have said: how many seminaries require Latin and Greek, as demanded by Bl. John XXIII in Veterum Sapientia? Benedict XVI seems to see the need to preach continuity within the Church, but most bishops and curia see a brand, spanking new church after Vatican II. After all, how many TLM are said in SF? In LA? In Fresno? Business managers in private commercial life would have been sacked long ago. The Anglican monsignor’s comments are well within the prohibitory tradition.
“Anglican priest are Catholic priests…”
ah, CHRIS, i can only hope and assume you mean “former anglican priests”
you do go on, but much of the stuff you attack is meant for quality: do you want some p[riest saying the TLM who bumbles through the latin, does not know the correct rubrics, etc.?
would this be reverent?
as for the second vatican counsil, there exists no “brand, spanking new church after Vatican II” as you suggest, because the catholic church has been in continuous life since JESUS established her. if you think otherwise, well, i don’t know the term for that, but i don’t want to be in THAT club…
i’m quite happy being a roman cathoic and thank GOD for the gift of catholicism.
I’m guessing St. Christopher is not a Roman Catholic from his comments above on an Ecumenical Council of the Church?
don’t confuse the title of this article,
“Latin Mass not priority for ex-Anglicans”
with that earlier article about a “jazz mass.”
this article today is NOT about salsa music or anything of the sort at mass. that’s not what they mean by “latin.” not mariachis, either.
just so you know…
“max” and “Emmet”: This is a put-on, right? Two happy Vatican II, ecumenical-loving, Latin distrusting, head-in-the-sand new Church “Catholics” unaware of the foundational battles now being waged in and against the Church. The question of saying one is a Catholic is not relevant; the true issue is what Church is now calling itself Catholic. The scandal-enabling USCCB gives the world a look at a truly disfunctional institution: suing the Obama Administration then embracing the very source of the evil challenged in court by inviting the President to speak at the Al Smith dinner. The many bishops and staff that infect us all with their crazy liberalism simply need to examine the source of their beliefs. It seems that too many Catholics, such as the LCWR, are basically Episcopalian wannabes. The Church is supposed to be about bringing salvation to the world. That means challenging pagan religions and peoples, not “respecting” their beliefs and practices, so that they fail to learn the source of salvation. Good luck with your understanding of the Church, boys, the hijackers of Vatican II are happy to have you in the pews. Not many left, though.
CHRIS, an ecumenical council is just about the highest level of teaching in the roman catholic church.
so…your constant attacks against the second vatican council make you look very heterodox and un-catholic.
now…if you want to talk about specific ABUSES that happened before the council of trent (which trent addressed), or specific ABUSES that happened after vatican 2 (which were not sanctioned by the council fathers), that’s a whole ‘nuther story.
CATECHISM: 891 “The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” ABOVE ALL IN AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
“Max”: Any government can make up rules to justify their actions. Catechism 891, for example, like the “Office of Bishops” is entirely Post-Vatican II in origin. It hardly stands for anything. The Church history supports only that the Pope alone, in Christ’s monarchical structure, directs the Church and can speak — in certain limited ways — with the certainty of direction from the Holy Ghost. Citing Vatican II implementation to justify Vatican II excesses is unpersuasive. And, look at the many writings about Vatican II, which was a “pastoral” council, not intending to reach dogmatic results. (I know that some in the curia have said that certain pronouncements were, “by their nature”, directive, but that is said to counter the arguments of the SSPX.) A great weakness of post Vatican II implementation has been the creation of a “co-equal” branch of Church governance — the bishops. Unfortunately for us all, the bishops have ignored the Pope and greatly disrespected his direction. The Pope alone is the Vicar of Christ, not Cardinal Dolan or the other happy ordinaries, who love a party and issuing unreadable letters, directives and the like (and who hire the loony liberal staffs of places like the USCCB to do so). Start with First Principles, not with what the victors tell you are now the rules.
CHRIS, you are living on an odd planet.
the holy father himself has stated that a bishop, in his diocese, is the vicar of christ.
so, if you believe the pope, why do you not believe what he says?