tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post3037191407754543145..comments2023-09-26T00:42:29.508-07:00Comments on Caritas in Veritate: The Old Rite put in its placeFather John Boylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10581732723849634398noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-28097113850344409642009-08-17T14:46:26.562-07:002009-08-17T14:46:26.562-07:00Dear Father Boyle,
There was a discussion about w...Dear Father Boyle,<br /><br />There was a discussion about whether a layman might act as sub-deacon at a Solemn High Mass on Father Zuldorf's website some time ago: <br />He starts the discussion by saying: <br /><br />"Keep in mind that Paul VI’s Ministeria quaedam says that the instituted acolyte assumes the liturgical roles of the subdeacon and that the 1983 Code of Canon Law says that instituted acolytes can be substituted by others who are not so instituted."<br /><br />http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/01/laymen-acting-as-subdeacon-at-mass-in-both-the-tlm-and-novus-ord<br />o/<br /><br />(or Google "Subdeacon" and "layman" - it should come up as the first offering..<br /><br />I have only ever seen it done once - it was a Corpus Christi Maiden Lane this year for Palm Sunday. The layman who acted as sub-deacon was a very experienced altar-server. <br /><br />I also recall seeing a photo of the MC of the LMS Mr Gordon Dimon acting as Sub-Deacon as well.<br />I think it is amongst Mr Vernon Quaintance's photos on Catholic Tradition. <br /><br />I think when a layman takes the role he may not wear the maniple. <br /><br />In caritate Xp.,<br /><br />Bryan DunneBryan Dunnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12372177865684332806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-32330610187483044532009-08-14T10:47:58.646-07:002009-08-14T10:47:58.646-07:00Hestor
Of course we can debate/constructively cri...Hestor<br /><br />Of course we can debate/constructively criticise the liturgical reforms made following the Second Vatican Council (which I distinguish from the reforms requested/suggested by the Fathers of the said Council). But my comment referred not to liturgical reforms but to institutional reforms (viz. the levels of Sacred Orders) which have consequences liturgically. I cannot see why the ef can't be adapted to permit a deacon to exercise his office whether at low, Sung or High Mass without a subdeacon.Father John Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10581732723849634398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-56568756216053632262009-08-12T06:43:49.096-07:002009-08-12T06:43:49.096-07:00Perhaps we should be asking, "Qui bono?"...Perhaps we should be asking, "Qui bono?" to some of the liturgical reforms of the council? Are they untouchable too that no one can pass constructive criticism on them too?<br /><br />It's the elephant in the room that no one is willing to admit. And it would seem that Archbishop Nichols is one of those people who cannot bring himself to admit that all is not well with the ordinary form. Only after 40 years are we talking about a "reform of the reform".<br /><br />What was it that Our Lord said about building your house on sand?Aduliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00534730218402742905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-53074189209335163502009-08-11T01:42:37.881-07:002009-08-11T01:42:37.881-07:00Patricius, I agree with you that the inclusion of ...Patricius, I agree with you that the inclusion of ED within the CDF is also indicative that liturgy and docrine are considered inextricably linked. But I am worried that your comment implies a rejection of some of the reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council, e.g. the restoration of the stable ministries, the restoration of the permanent diaconate and the abolition of the sub-diaconate.<br /><br />If the permanent diaconate has been restored, why can a deacon not perform his duties at the altar for the lack of sub-deacon whose 'orders' are not considered of divine institution? Is the extraordinary form <i>that</i> untouchable?<br /><br />I might write about some related issues when I have time.Father John Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10581732723849634398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-71535486540513783142009-08-10T17:11:33.438-07:002009-08-10T17:11:33.438-07:00Father, these are very interesting questions of Ca...Father, these are very interesting questions of Canon Law, for while previous Law can be superseded, nevertheless previous Law still retains its value. In fact, Canon 21 of the 1983 code states: ''In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonised with them.'' It is, of course, a matter of great liturgical significance that Ecclesia Dei has been brought into the CDF - a way of saying ''these are doctrinal matters now, not up for dispute.''<br /><br />As regards revising the Rite of High Mass to accomodate the absence of a Subdeacon, I would have thought that that constituted undue tampering with the Rites and would create more problems than solve any, but that is just my opinion.Patrick Sheridanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995907911415177074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-55461627230372991352009-08-10T01:42:06.667-07:002009-08-10T01:42:06.667-07:00The significance of the subtle insertion, by His G...The significance of the subtle insertion, by His Grace, of the two-worded clause "in itself" seems to be utterly lost on The Tablet's editorial.<br /><br />The Archbishop did not say: "The view that the ordinary form of the Mass is in some way deficient has no place here."<br /><br />However, he did say: "The view that the ordinary form of the Mass, in itself, is in some way deficient has no place here."<br /><br />+Vincent's use of "in itself" is most telling.GWAMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840883223560338540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-18644222228878142972009-08-10T00:21:43.683-07:002009-08-10T00:21:43.683-07:00Now, however, the SC of Rites is the Congregation ...Now, however, the SC of Rites is the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. Whilst previous legislation holds as long as it is not revised by subsequent legislation, now that Ecclesia Dei is part of the CDF, liturgical questions concerning the EF might well come under the CDWS. I wonder if the CDWS might legislate some revisions in this matter so that a deacon alone may assist the priest. Whatever they do I am sure will be done with great prudence.Father John Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10581732723849634398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-78554806533169265892009-08-09T15:26:37.928-07:002009-08-09T15:26:37.928-07:00Father, no I'm afraid it is not possible to ha...Father, no I'm afraid it is not possible to have a High Mass with only the Celebrant and Deacon, but no Subdeacon - a ruling from the Sacred Congregation of Rites states so.<br /><br />Yes indeed, I expect in the old days such a scenario was not commonplace at all, especially in Rome. Naturally, in England during pre-Conciliar days, the so-called ''Missa Cantata'' (really a Low Mass) was the norm. If there were another cleric in choir, he could (if required) chant the Epistle, or the Master of Ceremonies could perform this function, were he a tonsured cleric.<br /><br />Great to see you're back in blogdom Father! Shame about those nasty wretched little Tabletists though...Patrick Sheridanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995907911415177074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-40653167165024400682009-08-09T13:24:11.244-07:002009-08-09T13:24:11.244-07:00Thank you, Patricius. I suppose the thing then is ...Thank you, Patricius. I suppose the thing then is that if you can't have a subdeacon, you can't have Solemn High Mass but would have to make do with a Sung Mass. Is there no possibility of having Mass with a deacon without subdeacon? In the old days, with lots of clerics available, such a scenario was not common.Father John Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10581732723849634398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-57065132525335820302009-08-09T11:27:36.084-07:002009-08-09T11:27:36.084-07:00Father, Fortescue and O'Connell state that for...Father, Fortescue and O'Connell state that for reasons of ''grave necessity,'' any tonsured cleric can perform the role of Subdeacon, provided that he does not wear the Maniple, and he omits some of the ceremonies that normally the Subdeacon would do (such as ministering to the Chalice). The details are rather complex and obscure though.<br /><br />I once served a High Mass where the Subdeacon was provided by a layman - one that was tonsured, but left Seminary. I can't say that I agreed with that.Patrick Sheridanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995907911415177074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-55337249023312533912009-08-09T01:20:00.160-07:002009-08-09T01:20:00.160-07:00Easter Triduum: liturgical law forbids the celebra...Easter Triduum: liturgical law forbids the celebration of the Mass 'without the people' in either form, ordinary or extraordinary. There is therefore no undue limitation placed on the use of the ef.<br /><br />Yes, a 'private' Mass is one that, broadly speaking, is not published. But this can be interpreted broadly. For example, in many parishes priests do not publish a Mass time on their day off. I see no reason why a priest can't inform parishioners that, on his day off, he will offer the Mass in the ef and if they'd like to attend they're very welcome. This is also foreseen in Summorum Pontificum.<br /><br />As for instituted acolytes and lectors, it is not at all odd. The tradition of the Church is clearly in favour of male ministers. The use of non-instituted ministers, male or female, is permitted to supply for the lack of instituted ministers. In practice, it is true that instituted ministers are now generally only found in a seminary setting or in religious orders. Which means that Vatican II's desire that the stable ministries be restored has been neglected and they remain, in practice, transient ministries for those on the road to ordination.<br /><br />In the ef, I believe it is permissible for one who is not a subdeacon to carry out the office of subdeacon, but I would defer to experts on this.Father John Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10581732723849634398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-23115763120930117792009-08-08T17:48:44.270-07:002009-08-08T17:48:44.270-07:00oops, sorry, meant to say that I don't think o...oops, sorry, meant to say that I don't think ones sees instituted acolytes/readers outside of a seminary setting.gemoftheoceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05521207668262592414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6845239886251312993.post-9385083837434746292009-08-08T17:45:57.202-07:002009-08-08T17:45:57.202-07:00I think yours is a good analysis of the Tablet art...I think yours is a good analysis of the Tablet article. I think the pope did missed covering one angle however: The pope's statement seems to say that for the Easter Triduum, one can only use the Novus Ordo form. [Or am I reading that wrong?] If it was meant to be a blanket prohibition, he seems to have not allowed for priestly orders who are dedicated solely to the EF form of the Mass to do it according to the 62 missal. SHould he have not added a clause in there to cover that? [That's bothered me for a while, it seems to have been written without a thought to bishops trying to undermine the EF.]<br /><br />#2 Out of curiousity, I've always considered a "private mass" for all practical purposes to be one that is not published, or a regularly scheduled Mass. Itsn't it the case that in some sense the church, universal is considered present? For instance even if only the priest and ONE server are present (and no one else) the priest would still say in the Confiteor "..omnibus Sanctis, et vobis, fratres..." [...all the saints, and you, brethren] the "you" being plural. Ditto if the priest is alone in some prison saying Mass he is still bound to make the response "Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus meis ad laudem ... [instead of tuis]" [i.e. May the Lord accept the sacrifice of my hands...] Does he not say that in place of the laity (or cleric) saying it on their behalf?<br /><br />As regards the instituted acolytes/readers. You have to admit the whole concept is a tad odd. I can see why you'd do away with the minor "orders" as I'd be hard pressed to see a porter as someone having received a "sacrament" -- so "orders" was always an awkward term. Still, AFAIK, there are such "animals" as instituted acoyltes and readers, but it's my understanding that one doesn't normally see them outside of a parish setting, unless a seminarian (who has been instituted) is in residence in a parish. I wouldn't, frankly, see much point to having instuted readers/acoyltes in a parish setting.<br /><br />I think where this gets potentially awkward is in a high Mass situation. I'm not so much worried if there's a priest and the two others are at least deacons. But what do you do in a parish setting for that "straw subdeacon?" <br /><br />And personally, I think if the tablet is going to go around making blanket statements that the EF is "marginal" -- perhaps they should go play the lottery if they are that sure of themselves.<br /><br />For sure there are things I like and dislike about both forms of the Mass - but the Tablet is being awfully snippy!<br /><br />[I hope you don't mind my leaving <a href="http://gemoftheocean99.blogspot.com/2009/07/ef-or-no-or-byzantine-rite-or-punt.html" rel="nofollow">this link</a> to a post I did re: how I feel now about the EF form and the OF form. Some of your readers might find it amusing, disagree strongly, or agree!]gemoftheoceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05521207668262592414noreply@blogger.com