His
Excellency Bishop William Murphy, of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, conferred the sacrament of Holy Confirmation on a group of Catholics with a particular devotion to the traditional form of the liturgy.
Pete Sheehan reports in the Long Island Catholic:
In honor of Fr. Z’s tireless support of traditional liturgy I will bold my emphases and red my commentary.
They were not yet born — nor had their parents probably met — when the new liturgy was introduced in the 1960s, but a dozen teens and pre-teens last Sunday were happy to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation in a Latin ceremony [contrary to what some bishops think about the intelligence of the laity regarding the new translation of the Pauline missal, they are able to draw spiritual sustenance despite the difficulty of the texts, and perhaps even because it attracts our attention to the mystery which it veils. These are 12 year olds].
Bishop William Murphy conferred the sacrament last Sunday at St. Agnes Cathedral here for a group of children and one adult whose families regularly attend an approved Tridentine (traditional Latin) Mass offered each Sunday at St. Matthew’s Church in Dix Hills [Summorum Pontificum reads: Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it. Bishop Murphy has clearly taken Pope Benedict's motu proprio seriously and has approached the faithful in this circumstance with genuine pastoral care].
During a June 11 rehearsal at the cathedral, the confirmation candidates practiced for the liturgy, including the singing of two hymns in English — “Come Holy Ghost” and “Holy God, We Praise thy Name” — as well as such Latin hymns as “Tantum Ergo.” [All excellent hymns which ought to be normal in celebrations in the ordinary form. And Come Holy Ghost could just as easily be done as Veni, Sancte Spiritus. The consistent emphasis of the Church-- from Sacrosanctum Concillium in Vatican II through Pope Benedict's recent apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis is that Latin and Gregorian chant ought to have a pride of place in all liturgical celebration.]
Msgr. James Pereda, diocesan judicial vicar, who celebrates a weekly diocesan Tridentine Mass at St. Pius X Residence in Uniondale, led the rehearsal. Sister of Mercy Sheila Browne, associate director of the diocesan Office of Worship, and Father Andrzej Zglejszewski, director of the Office of Worship, also participated [it's good to see Bishop Murphy getting the diocesan leaders involved].
The confirmation class and their parents seemed excited and happy that their reception of the sacrament would reflect their preference for the traditional Latin Mass.
“When my daughter, Theresa, made her first Communion at our parish, St. Francis of Assisi in Greenlawn, she prayed that she could be confirmed in a traditional Latin ceremony,” said Patricia Bissex, one of the parents [and who could have guessed that it would happen].
“The Mass is so beautiful with the Latin, such a sense of the sacred. It’s magnificent,” Theresa Bissex, 12 [!], said. “I also love the music,” Theresa added. “I started a schola (small singing group),” with about 10 girls who sing Gregorian chants and traditional Latin hymns at the first Mass each Sunday at St. Matthew’s [This girl is twelve years old. She speaks with a maturity beyond her years. I've heard the young women sing at St. Matthew's parish-- and I'm impressed that it was by her initiative that this began. If only a male counterpart of hers would get a boy's schola started as well. We men need to reclaim singing. This is getting off-topic...]
“It is cool knowing that the Mass was celebrated this way since … forever,” said Joseph Marino of Commack [Haha].
“It’s also nice to be celebrating with so many of my friends,” said Veronica Bellucci, 12, a parishioner of Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary Church, Southampton, who attends the Tridentine Mass at St. Matthew’s on the first Sunday of the month [This is definitely important. It helps to not be in a ghetto].
“It’s wonderful that Bishop Murphy is confirming them,” said Patricia Rooney of West Hempstead, whose son, Stephen, 12, was confirmed. “He is so good with the kids, so welcoming.”
“We appreciate Bishop Murphy’s sensitivity in allowing those of us with a devotion to this traditional Latin Mass to have our children confirmed in this way,” said Heather Giambalvo of Islip Terrace. Her son, Leonard, 12, was one of the confirmandi.
“It was a very generous” application of Pope Benedict XVI’s apostolic letter, “Summorum Pontificum” last July, she added [exactly. This is a beautiful and generous pastoral action. This is how bishops ought to react to the Pope's wishes].
Pope Benedict encouraged pastors to permit celebration of a traditional Latin Mass when a stable group of parishioners requests it [it's also allowed to be done freely of the own pastor's initiative. And the pastor is not to merely to permit the mass-- he is to willingly accept it. This reform is aimed just as much at the priest as the laity!]. He also emphasized that the Mass now usually celebrated and the Tridentine Mass are not two different rites but rather different forms — “ordinary” and “extraordinary” — of the liturgy of the Church.
The Tridentine Mass was instituted by Pope Pius V in 1570 following the Council of Trent and remained in force with minor changes, including revisions made by Pope John XXIII in 1962. Mass was offered in Latin since the third or fourth century, reflecting the language of the people of the Church.
The Second Vatican Council gradually instituted the “Novus Ordo” or new form during the 1960s. Mass was to be celebrated in the language of the people of a country rather than Latin and the priest faced the people during Mass to foster full and active lay participation [Sez who? The versus populum saw is old and worn out. It's simply not true. It's not in Vatican II, and it's not mandated by the current liturgical rubrics. In Joseph Ratzinger's own words:
"Unfortunately [active participation] was very quickly misunderstood to mean something external, entailing a need for general activity… [The true understanding is that the oratio of the Eucharist Prayer is the central action of the liturgy and thus] we must still pray for it to become our sacrifice, that we ourselves, as we said, may be transformed into the Logos, conformed to the Logos, and so be made the true Body of Christ. That is the issue, and that is what we have to pray for… In this real “action”, in this prayerful approach to participation, there is no difference between priests and laity.
And for this reason he concludes:
We should be clearly aware that external actions are quite secondary here. Doing must really stop when we come to the heart of the matter: the oratio. It must be plainly evident that the oratio is the heart of the matter, but that it is important precisely because it provides a space for the actio of God. Anyone who grasps this will easily see that it is not now a matter of looking at or toward the priest, but of looking together toward the Lord and going out to meet him (see The Spirit of the Liturgy, pgs. 171-177).
We can see that Pope Benedict clearly thinks that ad orientem is actually central to active participation, not destructive of it. As to “was to be celebrated in the language of the people” is wrong. Is permitted to be celebrated in the language of the people, and was intended to be done mostly in Latin, if we believe the documents of Vatican II.]
. The changes were formalized in the Missal of Pope Paul VI in 1970.
Celebration of the traditional Latin Mass was discouraged. In 1988, Pope John Paul II authorized diocesan bishops to allowcelebration of the Tridentine Mass under certain circumstances for those who cherished the older form.
The next year, the diocese introduced a monthly Tridentine Mass at St. Pius X Residence in Uniondale, which over the years increased to weekly. In 1992, a monthly Mass was authorized at Sacred Heart Church, Cutchogue.
Since Pope Benedict’s apostolic letter, Msgr. Pereda said, traditional Latin Masses are offered weekly in the diocese at St. Pius X in Uniondale, St. Matthew’s in Dix Hills, Sacred Heart Church in Cutchogue, and Our Lady of Lourdes in Massapequa Park.
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament followed the confirmation ceremony, which did not include Mass. Most of the confirmandi and their families had attended the diocesan traditional Latin Mass at St. Pius in Uniondale that morning, Msgr. Pereda said.
Before the Second Vatican Council, Sister Sheila explained, confirmations were generally conferred outside of Mass. Since then, the Church has directed that confirmation and most of the other sacraments normally be offered during Mass.
Many of the parents emphasized that they recognize the validity of the Mass established by Vatican II. “I attend a Novus Ordo Mass for daily Mass during the week,” said Patricia Rooney of West Hempstead [Since a devotion to the traditional liturgy is a good and holy thing, and because these people are pursuing their devotion through legitimate means in the Church, we ought to be careful to emphasize their faithfulness or loyalty by quizzing them on the Pauline Mass-- there's no need to suppose that a self-styled traditionalist opposes the validity of the Pauline Mass unless they indicate otherwise. Not that this was being done, just that we ought to watch out for it].
“I think that all Catholics should be aware of and appreciate all of the liturgies of the Church,” said Patricia Bissex, including Masses celebrated by eastern Catholic Churches, such as Ukrainian Byzantine or the Melkite. “There is such a richness and depth to the Church’s liturgical tradition.”
Much thanks to Bishop Murphy for this genuinely sensitive pastoral move. I hope that he continues this tradition for all people who wish to be confirmed in the extraordinary rite. He also celebrated the extraordinary form of the Mass at Msgr. Pereda’s parish recently. Long Island is a tough nut to crack, so I understand reticence over being too forcibly traditional. I think he’s doing a good job.
I read Fr. Z’s blog too.
[...] Confirmation in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite And the pastor is not to merely to permit the mass– he is to willingly accept it. This reform is aimed just as much at the priest as the… [...]
I think that there could be a danger here. Singing latin hymns and attending the ‘Traditional Mass’ (with its impoverished Lectionary), may have a novelty value, but in the long run leave young people ingnorant of scripture, liturgy, and the Christian faith itself.
A danger? The lectionary cycle in use for centuries is impoverished?
Attending the same Mass their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents (on back) as novelty?
Bishop Trautman, is that you?
John Quinn,
I don’t think that danger really exists. I am a young person who is cultivating a devotion to the extraordinary form of the Latin rite, and who also reads more Scripture– I would warrant a guess– than most people in my church. And more than most Catholics, in fact.
If you want people to study Scripture I recommend a robust orthodoxy. That’s what gets people really interested in reading Scripture.
While the mass readings are nice, they ultimately are a mystery which is revealed through a deeper living of the Christian faith and participation in the Eucharistic mystery. No matter how many readings we cram into the Mass, if ears and hearts have not been opened to receive them, it will not matter. But if they have been opened, I assure you that the extraordinary form of the Mass, which as you know has nurtured so many saints, is more than sufficient for opening up the wonders of revelation to the congregation.
And I may make another note– the attention to Scripture outside of the readings is often superior in the celebration of the extraordinary form. Let’s be honest– most parishes utterly ignore the entrance and communion antiphons and they reduce the psalm to some sort of ridiculous solo by the cantor. Ever since I’ve been attending the extraordinary form, I’ve been paying attention to these things. Why? Because in the extraordinary form it is essential to prepare oneself before mass by reading the introit, the gradual, the offertory and the communion– all of which are usually taken from Scripture.
In fact, even on the point that I *hear* more Scripture in the ordinary form, it’s almost undisputable that I *pray* more Scripture in the extraordinary form. And above all what is essential for the laity is that they unite themselves to the divine action in their hearts by truly praying the Mass. And I must say, by being exposed to the extraordinary form I’ve begun to truly pray the Mass, rather than simply respond to the Mass.
So John, there’s no tension between the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Mass. Pope Benedict has given us the extraordinary form of the Mass so that we can celebrate the ordinary form in the true spirit of the reform of the Vatican II Council. And true and attentive devotion to the extraordinary form will blossom in qualitatively better participation in the ordinary form, as it has in my case.
As to the rest of your comments, leaving young people ignorant of liturgy and the Christian faith itself. This is really very far off the mark.
I know far more about liturgy by understanding what the prayers at Mass mean and where they come from. Where one prayer is in the ordinary form, there are three in the extraordinary form which are twice as long. How could I ever have guessed from the lame-duck translation which we have of the ordinary Mass that the priest is really offering “your sacrifice and mine” (and not “our” sacrifice) at the preface, or that what is translated “for all” is actually “pro multis” (for many)? In short, there’s no way, for most of our priests do not educate us about liturgy in the ordinary form of the Latin rite.
To the contrary, I understand far more about the liturgy than most of my contemporaries (20 somethings), and definitely more than my friends who are not interested in traditional liturgy. I know, for instance, that the entrance and communion antiphons are preferred in the rubrics over and against hymns. There is also a verse at the alleluia before the gospel, which I’ve found that most parishes omit or simply use the same verse from week to week. I also know that Vatican II’s constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concillium, far from obliterating Latin, assumes that Latin will remain the normative language of the Church’s liturgy, and gives Gregorian chant “pride of place,” or as the Latin says, “principalitem” in the liturgy– not of course to the detriment of polyphonic music. Likewise, I know that since the council, the popes have also been consistent in advocating the same in sacred music. I also know that ad orientem worship– the priest facing with the people towards the Lord– is an authentic and even normative way of worship even in the ordinary form of the Mass.
But who else knows this? Not many people. And I’d like this authentic vision of the second Vatican Council’s reform to be implemented in our churches. And I agree with Pope Benedict XVI that exposure to the extraordinary form of the Mass is probably the best way to achieve this.
As to knowledge of the Christian faith… have you read the prayers at the extraordinary form of the Mass? They are more in depth, more precise and more explicit about Catholic distinctives than the prayers in the ordinary form of the Mass.
All of your worries are really unfounded. And I refute them in my very person, for I am one of those young people who knows plenty about Scripture, the liturgy and the Christian faith.
John, I really encourage you to read Pope Benedict’s letter, Summorum Pontificum, and to unite yourself to the pontiff’s will regarding the authentic reform of the ordinary form of the liturgy by understanding the continuity of our ancient tradition with our current mass.
God bless.
Robert,
Christ is present in his Word. 71% for example of the NT is in the current lectionary, as opposed to 17% in the ‘old Mass’.
In my opinion, the Responsorial Psalm is the most important develpment (along with the entrance and communion psalms) in the current Mass. It is a great pity that this lapsed for 1,500 years, but has now been happily restored, and sung by cantor and congregation since the early 70′s.
The ‘new’ translation is arguably banal in places, but nowhere near as banal as the one we will be getting with its absurd non-words like constubstantial and ineffable.
What could be more Gregorian in style than Bob Hurd’s ‘Ubi Caritas’ or Marty Haugen’s ‘Shepherd me, O God’.
What could have more beatiful polyphany than anything by Arvo Part or Bob Chilcott?
Latin and the ‘old Rite’ are local and recent developments, and are peripheral to the Christian message.
The ‘old Mass’ has no continuity with the Eucharist of the last 40 years. It is merely pseudo-nostalgic and romantic to try and re-introduce this.
You clearly know very little about scripture, liturgy, and the Christian faith.
John
Robert,
I am sorry, that last sentance is not really true. You probably know more that me, which is not very difficult!
Mea culpa!
Or Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! as we will be saying soon.
All the best,
John
As a scripture-devouring protestant, one thought seems immediately obvious, building on Robert’s observations from within the faith:
In a thoroughly literate society with printing presses, radio broadcasts, podcasts, andInternet galore, sole reliance on being spoon-fed scripture in one’s native language in worship may (repeat: MAY) in some cases produce the perverse and unintended side effect of reducing one’s appetite and sense of personal responsibility for reading and striving to understand scripture on one’s own time. (That need not be solo or unguided study. I’m just talking about scripture study outside of worship.)
Could it be that the right-brained mystery is only meant to create the proper climate for the left-brained study?
Just askin’…
John Quinn,
“Christ is present in his Word. 71% for example of the NT is in the current lectionary, as opposed to 17% in the ‘old Mass’.”
This is true, but besides the point. For the Sunday mass goer, I wonder if there is really much of an extensive difference. For instance, the new lectionary is especially good at getting selections from all the gospels, but it’s not such a terrible count against the extraordinary lectionary if it takes only one version of the story from one of the gospels. For the average joe in the pews it makes no difference. It’s only when you sit down on your own and study the differences that it does make a difference.
“In my opinion, the Responsorial Psalm is the most important develpment (along with the entrance and communion psalms) in the current Mass.”
The responsorial psalm is almost always implemented rather badly, and I ought not to judge it by how it is implemented. As to the entrance and communion psalms– what do you think the introit and the communion are in the extraordinary form? This is hardly an innovation from the extraordinary form to the ordinary form. In fact, it was exactly because the extraordinary form has them that I’ve been noticing that the ordinary form has them as well. What is common to both forms is that people cut corners, but the ideal way that Mass ought to be celebrated is with these psalms sung.
“The ‘new’ translation is arguably banal in places, but nowhere near as banal as the one we will be getting with its absurd non-words like constubstantial and ineffable.”
How in the world are those ‘non-words?’ Whatever do you mean by that?
Look ‘em up, they’ll be in the dictionary.
And they’re not that difficult of words. Go and quiz people in your parish randomly. Ask them what, “of one being with the Father” means. I doubt very much that comprehension of this part of the creed is particularly high. Consubstantial is a good word because it means what it says, and it also has the bonus of not giving false impressions to people who aren’t familiar with what ‘being’ means in philosophy speak.
As for ineffable, do you really and truly think that this is so beyond people? I can’t help but think that the only way one can reject a word like ineffable is on the assumption that people are dumb. But that’s just a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we treat the people in the pews as if they are dumb, and dumb everything down for them, then they will indeed be dumb. But if we raise the bar, they’ll rise to meet it.
Naturally, pastors need to address their congregations and teach them about what the Mass means. But by no means must the Mass be easy to understand at first glance. To the contrary, any Mass that shallow would hardly be worthy of the name.
“What could be more Gregorian in style than Bob Hurd’s ‘Ubi Caritas’ or Marty Haugen’s ‘Shepherd me, O God’.
What could have more beatiful polyphany than anything by Arvo Part or Bob Chilcott?”
Actual Gregorian chant and actual polyphony.
“Latin and the ‘old Rite’ are local and recent developments, and are peripheral to the Christian message.”
You’ll have to explain more before I can respond to this. Especially how it is “peripheral to the Christian message.”
“The ‘old Mass’ has no continuity with the Eucharist of the last 40 years. It is merely pseudo-nostalgic and romantic to try and re-introduce this.”
I utterly reject your hermeneutic of discontinuity. It is not supported by the popes or the councils. And worse yet, it is common ground both for dissenting liberals and ultra-traditionalists who deem themselves more Catholic than the pope. Both groups hold in common one thing– that Vatican II marks a definite rupture with the past. They merely differ on which they think is better. If you do have a good argument for why it is utterly discontinuous, then please present it. I’d love to interact with your position.
Besides, the actual facts of the case do not bear the weight of your position. “No continuity” is totally absurd.
As for it being nostalgia– you do more by way of insult here than argument. I’ve explained to you that it does indeed have reasons far beyond nostalgia. The point of Summorum Pontificum is to accomplish the true reform of the reform by encouraging continuity in the practice of the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Latin rite. You’ll have to explain why Pope Benedict’s idea here is totally bunk before you can reduce this to pure nostalgia and romanticism.
“I am sorry, that last sentance is not really true. You probably know more that me, which is not very difficult!
Mea culpa!
Or Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! as we will be saying soon.”
Mea culpa accepted, John. May we always be in loving communion together in the Church, regardless of our disagreements.
God bless,
Rob
ultraguy,
Thanks for commenting. Perhaps from your perspective the discussion John and I are having on liturgy seems a bit strange. :)
“In a thoroughly literate society with printing presses, radio broadcasts, podcasts, andInternet galore, sole reliance on being spoon-fed scripture in one’s native language in worship may (repeat: MAY) in some cases produce the perverse and unintended side effect of reducing one’s appetite and sense of personal responsibility for reading and striving to understand scripture on one’s own time. (That need not be solo or unguided study. I’m just talking about scripture study outside of worship.)
Could it be that the right-brained mystery is only meant to create the proper climate for the left-brained study?
Just askin’…”
I think that there are a few problems with it. One is this: pure quantity is not always effective. Jesus said that he preached to the Jews– quoting Isaiah–, ‘so they would listen, but not hear,” Along these lines, how many of us have sat in Church for years listening but not hearing the word of God? I know this was the case with me– and I’ll I’ve known is the ordinary form of the liturgy. My heart was hardened, and so how could the Spirit make the word alive in my heart?
But for one who is open to the Spirit, it is not quantity of Scripture that will touch their heart, but simply the encounter with the Scripture itself, vivified by the Spirit of God. So I don’t think there will be any deficiency in the Christian.
Besides, one will only really know Scripture when one also takes time to study it personally. Yes, it is a great thing that I’ve grown up with the Scripture readings in Church. It amazes me how much I imbibed passively just by hearing the Scriptures year after year. The stories and the parables in the gospels are very familiar to me. But to really know them will take study.
I think part of the problem is also our society’s emphasis on information. For this reason we regard pure quantity of Scripture as an unqualified good. But consider that the ancient practice of lectio divina operates on the tiniest amounts of Scripture as possible. Only when we truly learn to pray the Scriptures will we be open to the infinite depth and mystery which is concealed in them– even in single word! And so I greatly love the zeal of people who read much Scriptures (and I’ve become one of them), but I realize at the same time that we can never judge a person by how much quantity of Scripture they devour. Especially since most of us Scripture lovers read more Scripture than we can reasonably meditate on in one day. And if but one verse, or but one word is enough for us to meditate on for the day, then there is no reason to suppose that a person does not love Scripture because he reads so little of it (I am speaking, of course, of personal prayer and devotion– such meditative focus, while wonderful, it not quite appropriate for liturgy). But, instead of encouraging a prayerful encounter with the Scriptures, we, thinking like good 20th century people, want to get a raw amount in. And I think this is a danger which we also need to avoid.
In short, there’s no perfect way to do this. And I do love the contemporary lectionary, but that doesn’t mean I dislike the old one.
-Rob
Why “take back” singing? Why not join? We have a priest who wants to oust women from singing in the name of tradition after years and years of service. He wishes to ban them from establishing schola’s of women, relegating them to the polyphony of choirs, and reserving the right of chanting in a schola to men–all in the name of tradition. I love the latin mass, have loved it for years, and I hate to see it used as a forum for denouncing the participation of women in chant.
spm,
I didn’t mean to imply that women ought not to sing. Although at times the choir has been somewhat… clericalized… I think the best practice would be for the schola to represent the congregation in general. After all, I think the idea practice would be an informed laity who are proficient enough with the treasury of Gregorian chants that they themselves can join in the singing, although led by the choir.
When I say I want men to reclaim singing, I mean that I want men to start singing again. In the average parish women simply dominate men when it comes to singing, and I bet the percentage is even more skewed when it comes to “song leaders.” For whatever reason, and I think part of it is the effeminate repertoire of hymns which are standard fare at Mass, men just don’t sing at Mass.
Of course, when it comes to men and women in choir, some people have differing opinions on how well the voices mix, and so I’m open to having differing uses for a men’s and women’s schola, but I think that the propers are pretty important and wouldn’t want to say no to anyone who wants to sing them.