Reports reach the Forest now and again about bishops and vocations directors quizzing seminarians about their interest in the Extraordinary Form. This could be a good thing: they might be ensuring that seminarians are at one with the mind of the Church about the Extraordinary Form regarding which Universae Ecclesiae told us a few months ago:
6. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honour.
Thus if bishops and vocations directors are expressing any concern regarding the Extraordinary Form and seminarians it would, one would think, be to ensure that all seminarians are at home in both forms of the Roman Rite and most importantly are taught how to celebrate and to love the EF.
Sadly this is not what one hears. Instead seminarians are quizzed about their interest in the Extraordinary Form in such a way as to make clear to them that any interest would be considered a problem and as they used to say in my time, `a formation issue`. This is outrageous given developments in recent years. Eventually this will change but until then it is sad that people who are only following the directives of the Holy See are made to suffer.
28.08.11 UPDATE. I see that the reaction button can be pressed as often as you like. I thought each computer only got one vote. I suspect someone has a problem with Summorum Pontificum and is trying to cause trouble. If I could I would disable the reaction panel for this post but it can`t be done for individual posts as far as I can see. I also suspect supporters are registering multple votes as I`ve never had so many votes for any post before. If this continues I will remove the reaction panel altogether.
Sadly this is not what one hears. Instead seminarians are quizzed about their interest in the Extraordinary Form in such a way as to make clear to them that any interest would be considered a problem and as they used to say in my time, `a formation issue`. This is outrageous given developments in recent years. Eventually this will change but until then it is sad that people who are only following the directives of the Holy See are made to suffer.
28.08.11 UPDATE. I see that the reaction button can be pressed as often as you like. I thought each computer only got one vote. I suspect someone has a problem with Summorum Pontificum and is trying to cause trouble. If I could I would disable the reaction panel for this post but it can`t be done for individual posts as far as I can see. I also suspect supporters are registering multple votes as I`ve never had so many votes for any post before. If this continues I will remove the reaction panel altogether.
15 comments:
You would think we had so many priests that we couldn't find churches or duties for them. Perhaps we should approach Rome!
Sad indeed. One more reason why a Traditional seminary is so much needed in this country, as well as in other European countries.
I've just posted something that I think illustrates your point very well... check it out
http://thoughtsofacatholicmc.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/seminarian-who-likesadmiresenjoysattends-the-extraordinary-form/
It is worth remembering that most of the Bishops and priests in senior positions today were formed in the heady days of followed Vatican II; a time pervaded by the so-called 'spirit' of the Council which, from my own time in seminary, was one which sought to foster a distaste and dismissal of our heritage. Since our hierarchy have been formed in this spirit for the last 45+ years they are, though genuine and sincere in seeking what they believe is good for the life of the Church and the affirmation of the lay faithful, rather Protestant in orientation in that they: they protest by inaction against the use and the valuing of our past. Not until we have Bishops and senior clergy who are at the very east open to our heritage (even if they personally cannot value it) will the Church arrive at that interior unity that ought to be present. Until then, internal division will be perpetuated in the name of ‘the spirit of Vatican II’.
I suspect distaste for the 1962 Missal hinges on the fact that it is almost entirely Latin (the readings, homily, hymns and Leonine prayers excepted) and has no Extra-ordinary ministers. The reality is that neither does the Ordinary Form as published by Paul VI in 1970; this function arose after the promulgation of Missal and though it is lawful, legal does not always equate with ‘good’. Indeed, although Rome has often reminded us of the limitations for the use of Extraordinary Ministers (see Redemptionis Sacramentum #154-160) these limitations are frequently ignored, from which arises the abuse of this function.
Further, it does not seem to have occurred to our Bishops and senior clergy that to make these ministries appear necessary to Mass (as they do by use daily or at least at every Sunday Mass) they make a very negative statement about the ability to participate actively from the pew; about those laity who feel unable to take on public ministry -or who are prevented from doing so by a lifestyle choice/situation. Yes the Extra-ordinary Minister symbolises lay activity in the Mass, but so do servers, musicians and singers. We must not forget that use of this extraordinary function at Mass is “not intended for the sake of fuller participation of the laity but is altogether supplementary and provisional” (Redemptionis Sacramentum #151).
Perhaps it has something to do with the comments made by the Canadian media cleric referenced in this:
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2010/11/rebuttal-to-father-rosica.html
I hope I am not responsible for your "unpopularity", having linked to you almost immediately after you posted it, Father...
Thank you,
NC
New Catholic I don`t think readers of Rorate Caeli would be pressing the dislike button.
I think those reaction panels are open to misinterpretation. I would never click on the dislike button in case Fr. Brown thought I didn't like his post. However, some people might click dislike because they do not like the content - in this case, the attitude to the EF in seminaries. In cases where I don't like the content of the post, I click "interesting" which I did in this case. If I like the content of the post I click like. There is no way of telling why the people who clicked dislike on the post disliked it. My comment is clear as mud...
I have never worked out how to use the "like", "dislike" comment thingies, so I never click anything.
But, there again, I am a technophobe.
Thank you, Em, for making the situation clear as transparent, sheer, see-through mud.
Would it not be possible to have a further option on blogs - "Load of Old Rubbish". It would help those of us who sometimes would like to comment on Polly Toynbee and her Guardianistas. Do Ed Balls and the Junior Millipede have blogs?
Some people only hear what they want to hear, and ignore everything else...
“I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant” (Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, par. 62).
Thanks Anonymous, that`s pretty clear. Shouldn`t be an issue really.
The attitude you describe, which has been adopted by many bishops, is responsible for many men failing to be ordained as priests. I would estimate that over the last 30 years in England and Wales, over 600 good young men, who would have been excellent priests, have denied ordination for the reasons that you give.
This must be a major cause of the shortage of priests.
Et Expecto may well be right in his estimates but without some explanation of how he arrived at his figures I must suggest they are guesstimates. Of course, his assumption of 'good' young men and 'excellent' priests is quite subjective and can be nothing else. The idea of six hundred priests, all good and excellent, takes some swallowing.
DE ja vu all over again!
Dear Father,
Maybe you've seen this:
http://www.kandle.ie/2011/09/02/diocesan-message-sept-2011/
The Diocesan Administrator for the Irish Diocese who is standing in for one of the Bishops who resigned in the wake of the Murphy Report had this to say in a letter read at all Masses in the Diocese:
"I would like to quote what the late Bishop Patrick Lennon wrote in his Lenten Message in 1970 during the changeover from what is termed the Latin Mass in which the priest had his back to the people"
It won't surprise you to learn that this is the Diocese of the infamous Carlow Cathedral controversy (and re-orderings go on at the rate of one or two a year despite recession and religious crisis):
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1998/oct1998p10_544.html
It is also the Irish Diocese with almost the worst record on 'Summorum Pontificum' (aka that letter on the Latin Mass in which the priest had his back to the people):
http://catholicheritage.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-long-o-lord-how-long.html
Post a Comment