SOS to PCED

Bishop Adamec refers to "guidelines" that he issued earlier this fall regarding the traditional Latin Mass (TLM). In these "guidelines" he states,

Should a pastor decide to celebrate or allow the celebration of one of the regularly scheduled Masses in a parish in accord with the extraordinary form (Missal of Blessed John X)(ffl), it must be in response to a request from a group (coetus/association) within his particular parish (member parishioners) that has existed and has been attached to the previous liturgical tradition steadfastly (that is: for some time; stabiliter existit). He may not do so as a result of his own personal preference. I ask that requests be presented to the pastor in writing, including names and addresses. These should be kept on file at the parish. In order to preserve unity within a parish, the Parish Pastoral Council is to be consulted in regard to any change. Groups composed of individuals belonging to various parishes are to approach the Diocesan Bishop.

... In order to assure that a priest has the rubrical and linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass within the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, acknowledgement of such is to be obtained from our Diocesan Office of Liturgy.

Cardinal Hoyos, could you answer these specific questions as they relate to Summorum Pontificum and our local bishop's additional rules regarding the TLM?

1) Are priests required to make a request to a diocesan Liturgy Office "in order to obtain an acknowledgment of his having the appropriate skills for celebrating according to those particular rubrics." If so, would such a requirement actually apply to "private celebrations"?
...

2) According to Summorum Pontificum, are priests permitted to offer the traditional Latin Mass on their own initiative, without a specific request from a group of laity?

3) Must such a group of laity exist solely within his parish, or may such a group be made up of laity outside the parish in question?

4) May the bishop insist that a group requesting a TLM be one "that has existed and has been attached to the previous liturgical tradition steadfastly"? How is such possible in a diocese such as ours, wherein the same bishop refused to permit the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass according to the 1988 indult?

5) Must the Parish Pastoral Council be consulted in regard to any such change? Or is the decision to offer the TLM at the sole discretion of the priest?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. We are desperate for concrete guidance and intervention from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to clarify these questions, in our local diocese and across America.

Thank you for your faithful witness and perseverance during this exciting yet difficult time for our Catholic Church, as well as your loyalty and obedience to our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

Please be assured of our prayers for you and the vital work of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Sincerely,

Dr. Brian Kopp

CC:
Most Rev. Joseph V. Adamec, D.D., S.T.L., Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown

Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

It is obvious that many Catholics, including laymen, have received written responses to their letters to PCED, but to date, I have received no response to the letter above (though in his various public comments since December, Cardinal Hoyos has answered most of the questions in my letter.)

Now it is apparent that some bishops are actively applying their "little tittle rules" -- namely, intensive/punitive Latin exams that are impossible for average post-VII educated priests to pass -- to put up a concrete barrier to any attempt by faithful local diocesan priests to start celebrating public Gregorian Rite Masses.

Other local priests who know and yearn to offer Gregorian Rite Masses have told me they refuse to submit themselves to these "little tittle " exams that constitute such an obvious violation of the spirit and letter of Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum. They are desperately waiting for the publication of the "clarification" from PCED on Summorum Pontificum, assuming that these punitive "little tittle rules" and exams will be overturned by sensible universal rules regarding the application of Summorum Pontificum.

They are heartened by the words of Archbishop Ranjith and Cardinal Hoyos that seem to indicate that these local punitive rules will be made moot by the publication of the "clarification" from PCED on Summorum Pontificum.

But they are not going to stick their necks out over mere words. There must be a concrete document that gives them protection from these "little tittle rules" before they can implement Summorum Pontificum in their own parishes.

We've had "clarifications" that the new lectionary can be imposed upon the Gregorian Rite Mass and that the readings can be done in the vernacular, that the Novus Ordo observance of Holy Days of Obligation can be imposed on the old calendar, we've heard opinions that the discipline of kneeling to receive Holy Communion on the tongue cannot be enforced in celebrations of the Gregorian Rite Mass, and we've had the whole "Good Friday Prayer" fiasco.

So, why is the anticipated PCED clarification of Summorum Pontificum being delayed so long, while the enforcement of these "little tittle rules" becomes more entrenched?

Post Script:

To clarify, here are some of Archbishop Ranjith's words regarding these "little tittle rules":

It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Father says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.

There have been positive reactions and, it is useless to deny it, criticisms and opposition , even from theologians, liturgists, priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals. I frankly do not understand these rifts, and, why not [say it], rebellion towards the Pope. I invite all, particularly the Shepherds, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. The Bishops, in particular, have sworn fidelity to the Pontiff: may they be coherent and faithful to their commitment.

...You know that there have been, by some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplainably intend to limit the Pope's Motu Proprio. These actions mask behind them, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I invite all to obey the Pope. If the Holy father decided to promulgate the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons, which I fully share.

...The Tridentine Rite is part of the tradition of the Church. The Pope has dutifully explained the motives for his measure, an act of liberty and justice towards Traditionalists. As for Latin, I wish to underline that it has never been abolished and, what is more, it guarantees the universality of the Church. But I repeat: I invite priests, Bishops, and Cardinals to obedience, setting aside every kind of pride and prejudice.

Cardinal Hoyos has stated,

"priests can decide, without permission from the Holy See or the bishop, to celebrate the Mass in the ancient rite. And this holds true for all priests…It is not therefore necessary to ask any other permission...The Code of Canon Law says who must give permission to say Mass and it is not the bishop: The bishop gives the "celebret," the power to be able to celebrate [i.e., both the old and new forms of the rite], but when a priest has this power, it is the parish priest and the chaplain who must grant the altar to celebrate. If anyone impedes him, it is up to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in the name of the Holy Father, to take measures until this right is respected…The Pope does not impose the obligation; the Pope does impose offering this possibility where the faithful request it. If there is a conflict, the authority of the bishop must intervene to avoid it, but without canceling the right that the Pope gave to the entire Church.”

Asked whether the Latin Mass would be celebrated in many ordinary parishes in future, Cardinal Castrillon said: “Not many parishes - all parishes. The Holy Father is offering this not only for the few groups who demand it, but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist.”

“All this liturgical richness, all this spiritual richness, and all the prayers so well-preserved during the centuries, all of this is offered by the Rome of today for all. As a gift for all, it is not a gift merely for the so-called traditionalists. No, it is a gift for the whole Catholic Church"...

The cardinal said that parishes and priests should make available the Extraordinary Form so that “everyone may have access to this treasure of the ancient liturgy of the Church.” He also stressed that, “even if it is not specifically asked for, or requested” it should be provided. ...so that “young communities can also become familiar with this rite.”

Good words. Strong words. Refreshing words.

But empty words, until the PCED publishes a clarification that overturns and repudiates these punitive "little tittle" local rules under which many diocesan priests still suffer, and under which, even with Summorum Pontificum, they are left without recourse.
Posted by Brian Kopp at