Talk:Summorum Pontificum/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article needs more layman's language, and needs to clarify the controversy in the lead

I don't understand why Wikipedia exists if contributions can be deleted by others. I tried to give the correct bibliographic citation to the originally published document of Summorum Pontificum (99:9 Acta Apostolicae Sedis 777 (July 7, 2007)) and have had the contribution moved from the beginning of the article and have had the standard bibliographic format rearranged. Are there super editors who can delete other peoples contributions? Don't call Wikipedia an "open" encyclopedia when only a few people can control the editorial content.

How about you learn how to format the reference properly and stop inserting your opinion on how it should be formatted into the body of the article?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this article is just coming together, but I should point out that from the layman's perspective, it's very hard to understand. It's built upon catholic jargon, it requires the reader to navigate through several links to try to gather background info, it doesn't suggest any of the reasons why the Latin rite was abandoned, nor why it was restored, and it doesn't give any indication in the early sections as to what controversy might exist. The only clue to controversy I could find was in the late section regarding the Jewish reaction... but is this what the issue is mainly about? For those who are in the know, please clarify.zadignose 00:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, it would help if the specific reforms of Vatican II that are being reversed here were detailed, so those of us who are not up on cannon law can understand why liberal catholics are upset with this decision. Wandering Star

The problem is that the lay popular media have already misrepresented this out the wazoo (Benedict has rescinded the Mass of Paul VI or Vatican II, congregations around the world will start using Latin next Sunday, etc. etc.) Unfortunately for uneducated journalists, the Catholic Church's theological pronouncements are always painstakingly specific and precise. Simplifying runs the risk of misrepresenting precisely what Benedict has done. The document itself is fairly nuanced. Here's my summary:

1.Vatican II did not abolish the Tridentine Mass. The Mass is still quite canonical. The change under Vatican II is that it required the permission of the local bishop to be celebrated - ie. it became no longer the default form of the Mass, the default form being the Mass of Paul VI in whatever language the local bishops designated as the vernacular. 2.The introduction of the Mass of Paul VI sorely upset some ultra-traditionalists led by Marcel Lefebvre, who came very close to forming a schism, even if they did not technically do so. Lefebvre himself was excommunicated after ordaining priests without papal approval.

Not exactly -- it was for ordaining BISHOPS without papal approval. Bishops ordain priests all the time, without needing anybody's approval but their own.Ifdef 13:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

3.Adherents to Lefebvre's Society of St Pius X continued to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in Latin, under the scheme enunciated in Vatican II - ie. under the permission of a local bishop. 4.Lefebre indicated that healing the breach between him and the mainstream of Catholicism would require that the restrictions on the celebration of the Tridentine Mass be removed as a starting point for dialogue. 5.Benedict has therefore said that, where there is a regular congregation of people who are eager to use the Latin Mass - ie. virtually no-one outside of the SSPX - they will be able to do so without first seeking the local bishop's permission.

The interesting question for me is whether this will ultimately lead to the establishment of the SSPX as some sort of semi-autonomous rite, a sub-branch of the Latin Rite with its own specific clergy. Slac speak up! 04:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Great points, Lacrimosus. We had an edit conflict; here is what I was trying to post:

Nothing is being reversed. Vatican II promulgated the mass in the local language in order to make it more accessible to all. It did not forbid the celebration of the mass in Latin. But over time, the bishops (especially in the U.S.) had begun to impose regulations on the celebration of the mass in Latin, requiring permission from a local bishop for it to be celebrated. This new document simply says that, while the mass in the local language remains the primary form of the mass, no one needs special permission to celebrate the mass (or other sacraments) in Latin.

(Lacrimosus, are you certain that Vatican II required permission from the bishop to celebrate the Tridentine mass? Because if my interpretation is correct, this could be interpreted as the pope pulling rank on the U.S. Conference of Bishops, which could have wider consequences. But if I'm wrong and permission was required by Vatican II rather than the bishops, then this document really does make a fundamental change. Has the pope ever unilaterally changed a Vatican II rule or document before?)

Regarding the criticism from Jewish sources: the new document expressly requires the mass in only the local language during the Easter Triduum. This includes Good Friday, so the objection about old Good Friday language is moot. (The points in the article about the egregiously offensive language being removed before 1962, and the fact that the current form still prays for the conversion of the Jews, as well as Protestants and all non-Christians, are also important in demonstrating that this doesn't change a thing regarding Jews.) Laura1822 05:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A few corrections are in order:

1. Vatican II did not promulgate any liturgy but called for a reform of the liturgy to make it more accessible and (to that aim) allowed a greater use of the vernacular.
2. The new liturgy was set up and implemented after the Council (of course based on its decree) and pomulgated by Pope Paul VI.
3. Language: the old liturgy is the "Latin mass" only in the sense that it can only be celebrated in latin and not in the vernecular. The new liturgy however can be celebrated in either language and there was never any basis for hindering a priest to celebrate the new mass in latin. (On the same level, the new Missal never called for the Mass to be said "versus populum" all the time, but actually assumed celebration "with the back to the people" in various instances.) These developments (language, direction of prayer) are matters of practice, not of binding documents.
4. Though the old liturgy never was abrogated, it is also incorrect to assume that it just kept on the side. With the new missal in 1970, the new liturgy was introduced as the binding liturgy for everyone (just as in 1962 the Missal of John XXIII had superseded the earlier Missal). However, at the old liturgy was not banned or anything by either Council or Pope. Some bishops might have banned it after realising that it would simply die out (but I have no particular information on this).
5. It was John Paul II in the Eighties that decreed that the old liturgy should be made more avaiable to those wishing to celebrate it but (and that's the point) the implementation was left to the bishops who could allow the old liturgy or not. Since too many bishops did not allow it or tried to limit it by other measures, Benedict now issued this document.
6. "establishment of the SSPX as some sort of semi-autonomous rite" - such a thing already exists in the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is pretty tricky, because the Catholic folks have discussed it for so long on various blogs, etc. that there are a million details that are simply assumed.

The "Novus Ordo" Mass, a.k.a. the Mass of Paul VI, was promulgated in 1969 and went into affect in 1970. This was done pursuant to the edicts of Vatican II, but it's really a semantic question if this should be called "the Vatican II Mass".

The old Mass was never forbidden, but there was certainly a widespread impression that it was. That lasted from 1970 to 1984.

In 1984 and 1988, John Paul II allowed a wider use of the old Mass. At that point, it did require the permission of the bishop for the old Mass to be celebrated in public in a diocesan church. (Note the adjectives: it could be celebrated without permission in certain circumstances.)

Summorum Pontificum does indeed allow a wider use of the old Mass, without any permission needed from the bishop in many cases. And so you are correct that this seems (in the eyes of many) to decrease the power of the local bishop to control liturgies in his diocese. This, in the opinion of many commenters during the past year, is the real reason why there was so much resistance from some sectors of the Catholic hierarchy. That opinion needs to be represented (with NPOV) in the article.

Finally, your point about the non-use during Triduum is not correct. The old Mass can be celebrated in four different situations:

A. [Articles 2 & 4.] So-called "private" masses (or "masses without the people"), which -- despite the name -- can indeed include a number of people. (Funny Catholic terminology; it would take a while to explain.) These would generally be ad hoc.

B. [Article 3.] Masses held on a regular basis in oratories controlled by religious orders -- for example, in a monastery.

C. [Article 5.] At a typical parish, which usually says the new Mass, but which says the old Mass on a regular or semi-regular basis.

D. [Article 10.] At a parish specifically dedicated to the old Mass -- such parishes still need to say the new Mass with a certain frequency.

The "none during the Triduum" rule only applies to category "A"!! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as whether the SSPX could someday be its own rite: I think the consensus seems to be that this is not an option, and that's why the pope stressed that the old and new Masses are not "two different rites", but rather "two forms of the same rite". This also raises the possibility that over the next few decades, the two different forms of the Mass may evolve together in some way (but that last bit is speculation on my part). — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have just come back from having read the document and the letter but I'm too late to retract my words.  :-) Confusing is right. If I'm reading it all correctly, it seems that what is being rescinded here is not anything from Vatican II specifically, but rather the rules implemented by John Paul II in the 1980s. That makes a lot more sense to my muddled brain. BTW the rules expressly state that the readings can be in the vernacular when the mass is celebrated in Latin, so perhaps, as you suggest, we will end up with a "hybrid rite." (Although that's how I remember the Latin mass as celebrated in my parish in the 1970s and 1980s, so it's hardly a new concept.) Too tired for more tonight. Thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion. Laura1822 05:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

{edit conflicted}

A couple of points, first User:Lacrimosus there are several other organizations that use the latin mass---the most notable being the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney (both in full communion with Rome). But there are many other groups (both with and without papal permission). So your statement about virtually nobody outside of the SSPX is incorrect. Still the SSPX does have well over 50% of all Latin Masses (it would not surprise me if it was closer to 80%.)

Laura1822 The Catholic church has always required priest to get permission from the local ordinary to say a mass in their area of control---this includes other bishops! It is generally a formality, but before a church can be established, it has to get permission from the local bishop. Thus, most SSPX churches and "independent" Catholic Churches are deemed illicit---they don't have permission from the local priests. (The SSPX debates that, but the argument is complex.) Under Ecclesia Dei the understanding was that priests were required to get special permission from their bishop to say the Mass in a form other than the Novus Ordo (New Mass). This was in an effort to ensure the local bishops had some say over their diocese. Many Bishops embraced the Latin Mass Communities, but some were very hostile (France, where the SSPX is strong, has a reputation for being very anti-tridentine mass.)

The SSPX has argued that since nobody has ever ruled that the Latin Mass wasn't allowed, that it has always been allowed and that the prohibitions against the Latin Mass were wrong. They've argued that the Latin Mass does NOT require an Indult---permission to do something unusual. The Summorum Pontificum basically agrees with the SSPX's position. This document is a HUGE coup for the SSPX because it takes the wind out of the sails of many of the SSPX's critics.

As for the Latin Mass during the Easter Triduum, I am interesting in how this will pan out. I read it the same way that the Jewish paper does--- but there are a number of Latin Mass communities that have already been granted permission from Rome to use the Latin Mass without that stipulation! I cannot see them accepting this requirement without protest!Balloonman 05:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC) NOTE: Just read Lawrence King above about this last paragraph, and he addressed my concerns/questions and is 100% correct.Balloonman 05:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Despite the complexity, this seems to me to be such a rational approach overall that I sincerely hope that all this will be a tempest in a teapot. The Latin mass is an ancient and rich tradition and I am glad that my right to it has been confirmed and that people can learn about it. Laura1822 05:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

One more point.... The person above who put the five numbered points said that there is "virtually no-one outside of the SSPX" who wants this Mass. That's not correct. There are over a hundred Catholic churches in the country that do the old Mass now (and none of them are SSPX, obviously). Here is a list (I suspect it's out of date, and it's certainly incomplete): [1]

No one knows whether the number will increase after Summorum Pontificum, but it's hard to imagine that it will decrease, after all this press coverage! Remember, this is a rite that was almost completely unchanged from 1570 to 1970 (and indeed, was mostly unchanged from 600 CE to 1970). It's a part of the Catholic heritage which most Catholics under the age of 45 have no memory of. A large number of them, due to the press reports, are going to want to attend at least once. If every Catholic in the world attends just once, that's going to be a lot of people! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That list is just the ones that are in communion with Rome and in the US. It does not include "independent" Catholic Churches, Soceity of Pius V, sedavancantis churches, and a number of smaller organizations that offer Latin Masses but are not in communion with Rome OR part of the SSPX.Balloonman 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the celebration of Latin Mass in sedevacantist and schismatic groups would not be affected greatly by Summorum Pontificum, so I think we could safely discount them from the tally :). Slac speak up! 06:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't related to the Summorum, but rather the statement that outside the SSPX there are virtually no Latin Masses... they may be schismatic/sedevacantist, but they still offer Latin Masses. The SSPX, while not in formal schism, is not in full communion.Balloonman 07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Friday and Jews

My interpretation of the Summorum Pontificum matches what was posted on this talk page: that the language in the 1962 mass for Good Friday (about the conversion of the Jews) is not covered by the Summorum Pontificum (and thus, can only be celebrated with permission of the local bishop). The question is whether the article should highlight this more, and whether other commentators (whether Jewish, traditionalist Catholic, or others) are reading it that way.

There are some good quotes from Rabbi David Rosen in a Reuters story quoted at [2] (same Reuters story at [3] and probably elsewhere).

The American Jewish Community "seeks clarification": [4] There's also discussion of wanting clarification at [5]

It may be too early to know what to make of this; the situation still seems to be unfolding. Kingdon 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope we have balance here because in its history, the Church and the Papacy are NOT anti-Semitic despite the claims to the contrary by those hostile to the Church. ludahai 魯大海 13:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of information here that suggests that the 1962 missal will not be allowed during Good Friday, and thus it is a moot point. Article 2, however, only only refers to private masses "In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum." Meaning, I think, that only private masses (in any form) are not allowed on Good Friday, which is nothing new. The document seems to say nothing else with regards to the Triduum.

Date Symbolism

I don't like the addition of the Symbolism of the Date---if there were something official stating that the date was picked for that reason, then I'd feel fine with it, but since it is merely "Speaking a bit humorously, some internet bloggers." This is unencyclopedic and anecdotal...Balloonman 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is neither unencyclopedic, nor anecdoctal. It just has to be expanded with more information to clarify the notion, because religeous numerological symbolism is a difficult thing to understand. Stijn Calle 20:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See Google for links to this subject [6], especially [7] Stijn Calle 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm bringing it hear because I'm not 100% against it... but the sources need to be stronger... if we had some reason other than speculation that 777 was picked on purpose, then I would be all for it... but right now, the only semi-credible source is the Inside the Vatican Mag which calls it humorous, numerology, and attributes the speculation to internet bloggers---not credible sources.Balloonman 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: So far, none of the cites that I've looked at passes for WP:RS... they are all speculative blogs.Balloonman 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Protestant

I moved the following from the article to here:

Criticism from Protestant leaders

• Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Evangelical Church in Germany said the document downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult.(ref)Vatican Reaffirms Catholic Primary Washington Post (via Reuters), July 10, 2007.(/ref)

This is a reference to a different vatican document not the Summorum Pontificum. I'd be a bit surprised to find many Protestant reactions to changes in the mass (although you never know).... Kingdon 13:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Caption

I reverted the caption "Joseph Ratzinger, who officiates as the Pope Benedict XVI in the Roman Catholic Church". This information seems quite irrelevant in the context of the article. And why is it necessary to point this out? Very few people would generally refer the former pope as "Karol Józef Wojtyła who officiated as the Pope John Paul II in the Roman Catholic Church". --Camptown 09:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Double denial is confirmation

> Since Good Friday is party of the Easter Triduum, the controversial wording would practically never be used in all but very few parish churches <

This sentence from the article actually does not make sense if you look at it really close. It denies twice and thus reinforces the exact opposite what the editor intended to say!

then fix it!Balloonman 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the above. The passage says that since Good Friday falls within the Triduum, the 1962 Good Friday liturgy would only be celebrated in the few parishes that would completely adopt the 1962 liturgy. In other parishes, that would use it only occasionally, the Triduum must be celebrated according to the Mass of Paul VI. The passage is a bit complicated but it is not wrong. And there is no double negation involved. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

There needs to be more controversies.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.64.242 (talk • contribs)

Don't worry, there'll always be more controversies ;-) 83.70.160.141 11:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A telling remark, 72... Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Defiance?

Bishop Trautman also indicated that priests seeking to celebrate the Latin Mass publicly in his diocese would be requested to take exams on Latin. Are such requests in line with Pope Benedict's decision? --Camptown 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not if he only tests their linguistic abilities. In order to read Mass in Latin (and the "Tridentine rite" can only be celebrated in Latin, wheras the "New Mass" can be said in Latin or the vernecular) you must have a certain command of the language. However, it could of course be used in an ideological manner to restrict the usage of the "Old Mass" - and this would certainly be against the Pope's intention. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"pre-conciliar"

I made a few edits to curb the word "pre-conciliar". While it is often used, it is empty in itself (the Second Vaticanum was oinly the last in a long row of Councils) and has a POV slant as it elevates the last council to a special position (quite against the intentions of this Council). And it gives the implication that the Council itself revised the liturgy which is not the case. The "pre-conciliar" (1962) liturgy was used during the years before and after the council until the liturgical reform and the new Missal. Sure Reform and Council are related but they are not identical. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism from Jewish leaders

The translation given for the quoted prayer segment is at fault.

[Start quote:]

Although the 1962 version does not include this phrase deemed most offensive ('Oremus pro perfidis Judaeis', 'Let us pray for the Jews who do not have the Faith')

[End quote]

A correct translation would prove the Latin phrase to be still more offensive, thus:

'Let us pray for the perfidious Jews'

No wonder Jewish leaders are concerned. --AVM 17:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not actually correct. The proper translation of "perfidious Jews" is "those Jews without the faith" (as opposed to those Jews that have accepted the Christian faith) - the offensive note to the passage comes from a miscomprehension of the Latin as meaning the same as the English "perfidious". Because of this miscomprehension it was changed in the end. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The word perfidious was removed by the 1962 edition as mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the prayer itself is only said on Good Friday---the Summorum explicitly states that the Tridentine Mass can't be used during the Easter Tridiuum unless the church routinely uses the Tridentine Mass. Thus, it is an empty concern.Balloonman 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: actually, you are correct, somebody edited the wikipedia text incorrectly. But the term perfidious was removed by the 1962 article so the concern is still lacks merit.Balloonman 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)EDIT2: added perfidious back to article, as it was there originally and is the offensive term in the Latin Mass that is not allowed.Balloonman 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Latin adjective perfidus has two meanings. It can be literally translated into English as "faithless" (fides = "faith"). The two meanings of the Latin perfidus are identical to the two meanings of the English "faithless": (1) not holding a specific faith, and (2) traitorous, nasty, untrustworthy. And, like the English "faithless", definition # 2 is the more common use.

Many scholars have argued that when it was originally written, this prayer was referring to "faithless Jews" to make it clear that it was directed toward non-Christian Jews. Otherwise, the term "Jews" alone might include Jews who had converted to Christianity, which was obviously not what was meant. On the other hand, other scholars think this theory is unlikely. What is certain is that by modern times this word had become a very pejorative, nasty word. Therefore IMO Pope John XXIII was right to delete this word in 1959. He ordered the prayer to be changed when saying Mass on Good Friday in Rome that year, and the year after, and then he decided that this should become the universal practice, and so the prayer was revised worldwide in 1962.

The other irony of history is that when John XXIII rewrote the prayer, Jewish groups saw this as a wonderful thing. And yet today the revised version of the prayer seems offensive. In my opinion, that shouldn't be shocking. Race relations and religious relations always progress this way: the "liberal language" of our parents' generation sounds dated and racist today.

I guess this doesn't affect any of the content in the article.... just pointing out that history is more complex than it may seem. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You need reliable sources saying that perfidis was intended to mean "without the faith". Beit Or 20:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. Reliable sources are not required for statements on a discussion page. Moreover, even on this discussion page I did not state that it was intended to mean this; I stated that some scholars claim it was intended to mean this and others disagreed. Note that neither of these opinions is supported by reliable sources, on this page or the main page.

But if you want a source, Cassell's Latin Dictionary gives, as the first definition of perfidus, "faithless". Which answers the question, but then again it doesn't, because in English the word "faithless" is ambiguous in exactly the same way that perfidus is. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Positive reactions -- should they be mentioned?

Should there be a section on "positive reactions" (as an NPOV balance to the "Criticism" section)?

Or is it traditional Wikipedia style to include a "criticisms" / "controversies" sections without a "balancing" section? (That actually seems most common -- pick a random public figure like Jesse Jackson and you will see a section of the page devoted to his critics, but no section devoted to his supporters.)

then go to Jesse Jackson and add 'supporters' if there are sources. this is wikipedia, not 'rent an editor'. --Leladax 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections are often added to articles that are too weighted in a positive manner... Jesse Jackson being a prime example. It doesn't need a 'supporters' section specifically spelled out. Likewise, while I am not opposed to positive reactions here, it is important to remember that most people who weigh in on this subject are going to be Catholics and will generally have a positive spin on the church.Balloonman 14:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you speak as though any editor cannot possibly keep his/her own ideology out of that which he/she edits ("it is important to remember that most people who weigh in on this subject are going to be Catholics and will generally have a positive spin on the church"), which is ridiculous. Also, I think it ridiculous to assume that most people who will weigh in here will be Catholics positive to the church. The Catholic church may be a church of 1.1 billion people, but there are certainly a lot of anti-Catholic people from other faiths or secularists out there. This being said, I don't think it necessary to put in much from supporters, since most will support it based on the objective facts of the issue, which are spelled out in the article. If anyone happens to have an extraordinarily positive response, I feel this should be included. We must watch the article, as we do with all articles, to see that no editor uses a non-neutral point of view, whether it be in support of or against the Church. JNF Tveit 15:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We should also remember that of the 1.1 (or whatever) Catholics, there will be many who dislike the Old Mass, so having a Wikipedian editor who happens to be Catholic does not mean that there's a greater likelihood of bias in favour of this document. ElinorD (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If we did want to say something about supporters, we might want to mention some of these "motu proprio celebrations" in churches [8] [9] and in the blogosphere [10] [11] [12]. Or we might mention the various bishops who have expressed positive reactions to the document: [13] [14] [15] [16]. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 08:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I added some positive reactions (expansion needed). These reactions are important to include in order to get a better picture of the issue. --Camptown 10:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ElinorD (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bishop Brandolini

This is the saddest moment in my life as a man, priest and bishop. but he will obey the Holy Father, because (he is) a bishop and because (he) cares for (Pope Benedict). This statement needs some clarification. Exactly, why is the bishop so sad (is he really scared that the conservatives finally had it)? Is his statement at all representative for bishops of the Roman Catholic Church? Is it representative for a generation of bishops who - in some way or other - took part in the Vatican II (Bishop Brandolini was only a deciple at that time)? I understand that some bishops may be anxious for losing some influence, but does that justify to publically releasing such hard words against the authority of the Holy Father? --Camptown 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

He's sad because he believes that this "reform for which many people worked, with great sacrifice and only inspired by the desire to renew the Church, has now been cancelled." E.g. he shares the same concerns as the ADL.Balloonman 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That bishop's statement is a very disconcerting one if he really cannot think of anything worse than the liturgy of the older Missal being allowed more freely. However, I still doubt that the bishop and the ADL have the same things in mind, especially since the ADL statements have been really focused on a simple issue. But that is not suprising since Catholic liturgy is actually none of its business. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why has this been on the main page for over a week?

It can't really be considered "news" for that long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.184.35.45 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 July 2007.

Yes it can... in the news indicates things that are in the news... this is a major event that affects a billion peopleBalloonman 23:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Church Architecture

I wonder if there are any implications as far as church architecture is concerned. I would think that the current design of many church buildings would cause problems for the celebration of a Latin Mass - especially those built since 1970 or those that have been heavily renovated. 70.41.111.24 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically it should, but I suspect that it won't. Having talked to my own priest about it, he simply said that if they were to do a latin mass they would "improvise".Balloonman 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, neither the traditionnal nor the modern liturgy has any official mandatory stipulation on church architecture. The position of altars has been a highly controversal issue, but as a matter of fact, neither the tradidional liturgy nor the modern one implies a specific disposition. The traditionnal orientation indeed is (a) the church should face east, (b) the priest during consecration should face east, (c) therefore, the priest should be back to the crowd during consecration. But this is not an obligation of the traditionnal missal. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, during the consecration, the priest must face "the Christ", and the crowd as well. This being said, the Christ may be materialized either by the eastern direction (traditionnal view), or by the altar cross (modern view). Both position are therefore licit in both liturgies. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 20:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Traditional chuches have the altar and tabernacle at the center of altar---this isn't the case in the modern church. Traditional churches also have the necessity of an altar rail for communion, many modern churches do not have this.Balloonman 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They usually do, indeed, but it is not mandatory: the tabernacle plays no part in the liturgy, the altar rail can be a mobile one made with kneeling boards, and so on. Look at the picture, if a traditionnal celebration can take place in the open air, in can take place anywhere, including -why not?- in a church ;o) Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 05:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of balance

The "Jewish reactions" section is three and a half screens long (on my PC) in a 10-screens article: one third of the subject? this is ridiculous, obviously off-balance. Furthermore, the debate described in this section has very little to do with the Summorum Pontificum motu proprio: it merely re-states that some lines in the traditionnal liturgy may be read as geing offensive for jews. OK, but this is old hat: hasen't it allready been said elsewhere in wikipedia? then simply provide a link to that specialized page, if someone really thinks this is really important; and transfer the material on that page ("That debate revived after the motu proprio..." etc). Jewish reactions is not the central point of this motu proprio, it deserves at best a few lines (and imho: none).

OK, here it is: Good Friday Prayer; it is clearly nonsensical that the debate in Summorum Pontificum should be more developped than the whole Good Friday Prayer article... I'll do the transfer, please debug my messy english if necessary. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 06:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should, perhaps, have written a short summary of the Jewish reaction after "transfering" the entire section to the Good Friday article. --Camptown 09:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... I went ahead and added the see also template and a short section on the controversy back into this article. I also agree that it had become too weighted as the Jewish reaction isn't the purpose of the article.Balloonman 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The section title Jewish Reactions, plural, implies more than one reaction. The ADL reaction (and pre-emptive statement prior to publication of the document) is however the only one still listed. I will add a sentence to show the AJC reaction as well: "The American Jewish Committee (AJC) stated that it appreciated that the motu proprio actually limits the use of the Latin Mass in the Good Friday liturgy concerning the Jews, but asked for clarification that this qualification applies to all situations."Ajschorschiii 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I made the change I proposed above, I saw that now the entire Jewish Reactions section was moved to the Good Friday Prayer article. I did not make the change I proposed above, since it is no longer necessary. Fuller documentation is at the Good Friday Prayer site.Ajschorschiii 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The change was made by a POV pusher who deleted all criticism and reinstated all praise. The praise needed to trimmed... and the criticism is valid. SOME criticism is necessary as it is profound.Balloonman 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the section needed shortening, but let's keep the translation of the wording used by the critics i.e. "perfidious Jews" and "even to the Jews". Scolaire 06:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a summary of the "praise", which after all reveals that the supporters of the Latin Mass only view the decision as a first step and that more has to be´done before reconciliation will be reached. --Camptown 09:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the Jewish reaction is now back in the article, I've added back in the sentence summarizing the AJC position. The ADL position is not the only Jewish reaction.Ajschorschiii 02:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems better now ;o)

But ... could somebody also take care of the Good Friday Prayer article, which is quite strange-looking after my dump? Thanks. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 04:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaylord directive

Perhaps I am wrong, but my reading of the sources indicated by Axefan seems to show that Bishop Cooney's directive (which I cannot access directly - perhaps too many people have been trying to do so) was not, as Axefan said, a reaction to Summorum Pontificum. "Diogenes", on Catholic World News, wrote that "the recent papal motu proprio, ... had not yet appeared when Bishop Cooney issued this astonishing directive". How then can it be called a reaction?

Just by the way, "Diogenes" omitted an important part of the document Redemptionis sacramentum, when he quotes it - or rather misquotes it - as grounds for holding that Bishop Cooney contravened existing law. The phrase he quotes is only part of a sentence, the complete text of which is: "Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin." Bishop Cooney certainly had the right to make directives for "celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people". But this is irrelevant to an article dealing with Summorum Pontificum and reactions to it. Lima 04:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)