What will happen is that a group will break off called the SSV2 (Society of the Spirit of Vatican II) and they will say the Mass only using the older ICEL translation and setup SSV2 chapels with clown masses.I think he's got it right.
As the debate is usually framed, we are confined to but four positions. First, according to the standard schema, there are only two stances on the question of whether Vatican II broke with Catholic tradition (yes or no). Then, right after that, there are two further subsidiary positions one must take, to affirm or decry the initial conclusion (good or bad). Thus, one option holds that Vatican II seamlessly continues the Church’s past, and should be praised for keeping the faith. (The late Avery Cardinal Dulles is often taken as the premier defender of this position, although his actual conclusion is more subtle.)Fr. Zuhlsdorf, "A reflection on rupture" (WDTPRS, March 12, 2009), furnishes the following mental assignment:
The second position equally concedes Vatican II’s continuity with the Church’s past, but is for that reason to be lamented. (Hans Küng comes close to that view; indeed he wrote his book The Church while the Council was still in session to offer an alternative to Lumen gentium, the Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which he thought was too hidebound in its attachment to the past).
A third position holds that Vatican II represents a break with the Church’s past and should be praised for doing so. (John O’Malley’s recent book What Happened at Vatican II likes this posture.)
Finally, a fourth position agrees with the disruption thesis and loudly complains about it. (Such is the basis for the Lefebvrist schism.)
But surely the reality is more complicated than these too-neat options can allow. Why cannot Vatican II be seen as both continuous with and yet also a departure from the Church’s ancient tradition? Isn’t that true, after all, of all the major and historic councils? Doesn’t a more nuanced assessment do less violence to the historical record than the procrustean options outlined above? Although Benedict is famous in the world press for holding to what he calls the “hermeneutics of continuity,” his own position is actually far subtler than such a tagline would indicate (which is partly why in lifting the excommunications he was so readily misunderstood).
In fact, in the very speech he gave to the Roman Curia, December 22, 2005, that made the “hermeneutics of continuity” so famous as a phrase, he openly admitted that Vatican II represents a rupture of some kind (why else the controversy?). But for him it was a rupture that paradoxically revealed the Church’s fidelity to her truest identity: A discontinuity was revealed, he said to the Curia, “but [it was one] in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned.”
To those stuck in the usual two categories provided by secular journalism, the pope will sound here like he is trying to have it both ways. But for Benedict, unless we can accurately categorize the various changes brought about by the Council in different terms, we will continue to misinterpret it. In other words, the issue of continuity vs. discontinuity only gets us to the beginning of the debate, not to its end.
Let me propose something to think about.Some of the combox comments are worth reading if you have the time.
The Holy Father has made his pontificate in part a reflection on continuity.
This commitment to restore a proper interpretive principle is the fruit of decades of observation and reflection from a unique, privileged vantage point.
Will you stipulate now that "rupture", lack of "continuity" is a bad thing?
The obvious type of rupture and discontinuity is in the form of a break with the past. Progressivists see the Council, for example, as a break with the past, a new theological, ecclesiological starting point. They do great harm by working from this view. If you take insufficient positive consideration of the past, you work great harm.
Another type of rupture, less obvious, comes from those who defend the past while not taking sufficient account of present progress or the possibility of authentic development without substantive change in doctrine. Those who freeze the Church and deny the possibility of broadening our theological reflection do great harm. The world does in fact present new exigencies even if human nature doesn’t "mature" out of its perennial needs – as many progressivists falsely assume.
Rupture from the past. Rupture from the future.
Rupture from the future is easier to correct. Rupture from the past is the more dangerous.
After all, it is part of the warp and weft of the Church’s nature to tend toward the unchanging, to resist the effects of that which shifts and is never fixed, and to guide the wider world toward her Lord, who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
... Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? ... I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart.... And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
"... if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another."
Pope Benedict XVI addressed a letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, dated March 10 2009, in which he made them aware of the intentions which guided him in this important step which is the Decree of January 21, 2009.
After "an avalanche of protests was unleashed" recently, we greatly thank the Holy Father for having placed the debate at the level on which it should take place, that of the faith. We fully share his utmost concern for preaching to "our age, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel"....
When the wheels come off a train, people get hurt and the capital of an organization is threatened, someone gets blamed. Someone must pay.
The liberals of the secular press and the progressivist element of the Catholic media latched on to the Holy Father’s admission that mistakes were made in the lifting of the SSPX excommunications.
Their common accusation is that the Holy Father failed to consult widely enough, he is to blame, or that Card. Castrillon with the Pontifical Commission he heads was a loose cannon, and he is to blame. They energetically advance that the future fusion of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to the CDF is truly an acceptance of this blame. They rejoice in their vindication.
On the other hand, Giovanni Maria Vian, the revolutionary editor of the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano printed an editorial in which he identifies his own candidates for blame.
The first part of the editorial chews over facts we already know. The meat of the piece comes well along.
Here is my translation of the paragraph conveying Vian’s central point:The clarity of the Pope’s analysis does not sidestep open and difficult questions, such as the need for attention and a more prepared and timely communication in a global context where information, omnipresent and superabundant, is continuously exposed to manipulations and exploitations, among which are so-called leaks, which only with effort cannot be called wretched - even within the Roman Curia, an organism historically collegial and which in the Church has the obligation of being exemplary.... Say what you will about the Vatican-hostile, SSPX-allergic Marco Politi of La Repubblica, he is astute. He caught Vian’s drift immediately and wrote: "In a column Giovanni Maria Vian castigates the ‘manipulations and exploitations’ also within the Roman Curia…". Politi caught the real point of Vian’s editorial.
Vian says the Vatican’s portion of the blame lies on the backs of some workers of the Roman Curia.
The point: These negationists took advantage of the situation to hurt the Pope and prevent positive developments with the SSPX.
So set are they against such a rapprochement, and its implications for how we read and apply the Second Vatican Council, that they would harm to Pope’s moral capital in the world and with Jewish groups, damage the Holy See’s relations with states, and foment chaos in Holy Church’s internal harmony.
A close reading of that paragraph shows that information leaks, intended to fuel a rumpus, were only one dimension of the "manipulations and exploitations". There were other dealings, subtle and confined to hallways and offices.
I believe these deeper manipulations are behind the present scapegoating of Card. Castrillon and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
The Holy Father desires to reintegrate the SSPX. Doctrinal discussions are the next logical step, now that Summorum Pontificum has taken root and the excommunications have been lifted. The Commission’s mandate must naturally be adjusted to this new situation. But the negationists are busily spinning the Pope’s intention to place the Commission under the umbrella of the CDF as a sure sign of defeat for the Pope, for the Commission and Card. Castrillon, and for the pro-Lefevbrites in the Curia who, as Politi frames them, shamelessly used leaks to create an unrealistically rosy picture of the SSPX.
The last thing progressivists want is a Pope determined to reintegrate the SSPX, with their dangerous ideas, or an effective Cardinal as President of the Commission who might actually take seriously the Commission’s mandate to reconcile the SSPX. In fact, the Holy Father’s projects have gained frightening momentum.
The liberals now coo that, at long last, the connection of the Commission with the CDF will allow the "consultation" of many many interested well-informed parties from the corners of the globe with differing points of view.
In reality they hope that as the consultation broadens the Pope’s project will grind to a halt.
There are in the Curia, in key positions, men who would prefer that Paul VI’s official pontifical portrait was still framed upon their beige walls. They patiently endured the hard years of the Polish Pope, put in their time, and climbed inexorably upward. Then came the German Pope with his dangerous ideas about continuity, his penchant for the fait accompli, his pesky intelligence and annoying happiness. They are vexed.
Quite a few heads of dicasteries have reached the famous age limit and will most likely be moved along. The men in the next tier down would normally have expectations of moving up. But as Paolo Rodari pointed out in a recent series of commentaries, not a few of the old guard, at first disposed to support this new Pope’s efforts in the expectation that they would eventually be raised to the next level, have discovered to to their dismay that this Pope isn’t going to promote them. They have turned on him now that they know they will not be. They have fished out their stilettos from the back of the desk drawer.
Traditionally Curial changes are announced in the spring and the fall.
Blame has been apportioned. Accounts are being settled.
We must watch the appointments.
I'm starting to think that I have no business applying to Catholic colleges, since one of my concerns is orthodoxy--actual adherence to the Church's teaching, broadly conceived. What kind of battles will I be in for if I go to a school that violates or disregards Church teaching on life issues, ordination of women, and even questions whether it is just to exclude non-Catholics from the Eucharist? Matters of conscience even get tricky at a secular, state school; how much more so if the administration of a Catholic college where I worked were to promote an agenda opposed to Church teaching? And yet, I interview by phone tomorrow with a college that was founded by an order that ABSOLUTELY supports women's ordination. Campus ministry reluctantly acts according to the will of the local bishop in refusing Communion to non-Catholics (not the Vatican, you will notice). I even emailed for clarification on this point, and the tone was one of remorse and sad disagreement. I have no idea how this would influence the tenor of the English department, except that the faculty members list the subjects about which they will willingly be interviewed by the press on their web pages--yes, that's ENGLISH faculty, people. Yet they're hiring for a position that would, essentially, oversee the school's orthodoxy, including screening new hires for willingness to adhere to the school's mission, uphold Catholic identity, etc. This person does not have to be a practicing Catholic.[Hat tip to R.B.]
What to do??
It's easy to be taken in by junk emails sometimes. There's one going around claiming that "In God We Trust" has been removed from the face of the new George Washington US dollar coin. While this is true, and there was nothing yet at the time of this posting on Snopes.com about the report, what I discovered by checking a few websites (like this one) is that the phrase has been retained as an edge-incused inscription. In other words, it's on the side of the coin instead of the face, as in the image below.
Statistics cited in Kenneth C. Jones, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II
- 1960 - 146,212
- 2002 - 79,892
(Oriens Publishing; rpt., Ft. Collins, CO: Roman Catholic Books, 2003), p. 63.
[Comments? Ideas for a future column? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for March 8, 2009. Hat tip to A.B.]FSSP Showcases Assumption-Windsor’s Chant Sheets
In past columns, we have discussed the official sources for the Gregorian Chants of the Church. The Liber Usuális and other books published by the monks of Solesmes are the principal references. The altar missal used by the priest contains musical settings of the Preface and various parts of the Ordinary of the Mass. As far as we know, however, there is no official book in print containing the music for the priest’s chanting of the Collect, Epistle, Gospel, and Postcommunion. The altar missal has the texts for these Propers, of course, but no music. The Liber doesn’t have the music either, as it is primarily a book for the choir.
Musical purists might point out that the Liber has the “tones”, or musical guidelines for chanting these Propers. In other words, learn how to chant one Epistle, and you can chant them all. That may work for someone who has a natural skill for music, but many a priest would prefer clear sheet music that leaves no doubt as to how these parts of the Mass should be sung.
Recognizing this gap in available support materials, Mr. Michel Ozorak, a chant expert and longtime member of Windsor’s Tridentine Mass Community, began to create in early 2007 a complete set of sheet music for the Collect, Epistle, Gospel, and Postcommunion of the Sundays and Holy Days of the Church Year. Fr. Peter Hrytsyk has been using the Chant Sheets for over a year. Bishop Earl Boyea also uses them, as do the deacons and subdeacons at our Solemn High Masses.
Fr. Josef Bisig, co-founder of the Fraternity of St. Peter, noticed these Chant Sheets during his visit to Assumption in November. In an impressive endorsement of Michel’s work, the FSSP is in the process of posting the Epistles and Gospels (in the Tonus Antíquior) on the web site of Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary at:www.fsspolgs.org/chant.html. The FSSP recognizes that such a resource is of great value at this point in Church history, when numerous new priests are trying to master the Extraordinary Form with a minimum of training materials. Congratulations and God’s blessings for taking this initiative, Michel!New Web Site for Assumption-Windsor
After the existence of the new Chant Sheets on the FSSP web site was recently mentioned on The New Liturgical Movement blog, requests started to arrive for sheets with the Gospel in the alternate Ad Libítum tone, as well as for sheets with the Collect and Postcommunion. These inquiries became the motivation for a long-overdue updating of the web site for the Extraordinary Form Mass at Assumption Church, www.windsorlatinmass.org The new site includes a page with all of the Chant Sheets, including the Collects, Epistles, Gospels (in both the Tonus Ad Libítum normally used at Assumption and the Tonus Antíquior preferred by the FSSP), and Postcommunions.
All of the Latin/English Propers Handouts for the year and all of the Tridentine Community News columns going back to the beginning in 2006 have been posted in PDF format. Recordings of the Assumption Tridentine Choir and various photo slide shows have also been included. Further video and audio files will be posted over time, as visual and auditory beauty can be a more eloquent way to convey a concept than words.
We welcome any suggestions that you may have for both the Assumption and St. Josaphat web sites, as these are important forms of outreach in our day.
I recently completed a petition to Withhold Communion from prominent Catholics in public life thatdissent from the Church's teaching on a variety of serious moral issues including abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, homosexual marriage, and embryonic stem cell research to name a few.[Hat tip to Prof. E.E.]
I encourage you to do the same.
Canon 212 S3 of the Catholic Church states that the Catholic faithful have '..the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church.' In response to this 'duty' please go to the following link and complete a petition.
www.pewsitter.com/petition/index.php
The goal of the petition drive is to generate a million petitions to give to present to our bishops asking them to take action. Also, please pray for the success of this petition drive.
God Bless You,
p.s. If you previously received this letter from me [by email] and have already completed the petition - - thank you -- and please forgive the duplication.
Care in Handling the Blessed Sacrament[Comments? Ideas for a future column? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for March 1, 2009. Hat tip to A.B.]
We have stated before a concept that seems as though it should be self-evident to Catholics, and even to non-Catholics: If we truly believe that the consecrated bread and wine are the Most Precious Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, then they deserve to be shown utmost respect. They should not be handled or distributed casually as though they were hors d’oeuvres.
The Rubrics and customs of the Extraordinary Form Mass are designed to do just that. It starts with the basics: If they are not in a collective motion involving the priest, the sacred ministers and altar servers genuflect when they cross the tabernacle, as a sign of reverence to our Lord reserved in the Blessed Sacrament.
Even the Tiniest Particle is Our Lord
Great care is taken after the Consecrations to ensure that no particle of our Lord’s Sacred Body, and no droplet of His Most Precious Blood, are scattered, trampled upon, spilled, or desecrated in any way. The celebrant holds his thumb and forefinger together from the Consecration to Holy Communion, lest any crumbs fall. The priest uses the paten to scrape off any particles there may be on the altar, and then wipes off the paten into the chalice, thereby ensuring that all particles of the Host are consumed.After a priest or deacon has touched a Sacred Host, he must purify his hands. During Mass, this is done at the ablutions after Holy Communion. First, wine is poured into the chalice or ciborium, when is then tilted around so that the wine cleanses its side walls. Then the priest takes the chalice to the Epistle side of the altar, where the altar servers pour wine and water over his fingers into the chalice. Again, the chalice is tilted to ensure thorough cleansing. The priest wipes his fingers dry with the purificator cloth and drinks the wine and water from the chalice.
If there was a second distributor for Communion, such as a deacon, he cleanses his fingers in a little glass cup of water that sits to the right of every tabernacle, and then wipes his fingers with a cloth that sits next to this cup.
During the Distribution of Holy Communion
At the Communion Rail, an altar server holds a paten underneath the chin of each communicant, to catch a Host that may fall. The server never tilts the paten, lest any particle of the Host that may be on the paten fall to the floor.
Some churches, including St. Josaphat and Assumption-Windsor, have Communion Rail Cloths that augment the paten and expand the area where a dropped Host might be noticed.
What Happens If a Host Falls on the Floor?
The paten and the Communion Rail Cloth cannot and do not handle all situations. Sometimes a Host does fall to the floor. It is our collective responsibility, altar servers and those kneeling at the rail alike, to alert the priest or deacon distributing Holy Communion if this does happen.
The Rubrics prescribe that a dropped Host “is to be taken up reverently, a little water is to be poured over the place where it fell, and the place is to be dried with a purificator” [De Deféctibus #45]. The priest either consumes the Host or places it in the water cup next to the tabernacle, so that it dissolves. Similar rubrics exist for spilled Precious Blood and other mishaps.
Every so often, the tabernacle’s water cup is emptied directly into the earth, either outside the church or via a Sacrárium, a sink in the sacristy that drains directly into the ground. Chalices and ciboria purified outside of Mass are also drained into the earth in this fashion if their contents are not consumed.
Each of these steps is taken to ensure that no profane end – such as being trampled upon underfoot, being swept into trash, or being flushed into the sewer system – occurs to any particle of our Lord.
It Can Give One Pause…
…to consider just what message is being sent by the more casual methods of distributing Holy Communion that have become the norm nowadays. On a practical level alone, theological issues aside, Communion given in the hand while standing, and with the disuse of patens held under communicants’ chins, is simply going to result in particles, and even entire Hosts, falling, being stepped upon, and even ground into the floor. Why are we letting our God be treated in such a manner?
Encouraging Signs of Regained Respect for the Eucharist
There is good news: In the 1980s, one would have had to search high and low to find a church offering Benediction or Holy Hours. By the grace of God, Eucharistic Adoration is making a comeback, via Adoration Chapels, Benediction services, and the example set by EWTN. Perhaps if people ponder just why they are showing such devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, they will notice the incongruity of handing the Blessed Sacrament in a casual manner before, during, and after Holy Communion.
Fortunately, at an Extraordinary Form Mass, the rubrics minimize such risks. Let us pray that a renewed sense of respect for the Blessed Sacrament results not only in increased Eucharistic Adoration, but also in adoration of a different sort, the day-to-day reverence that we should be showing our Lord at every Holy Mass.