Ubi Petrus

The letter is here and an explanatory letter here (jump to the English). Obviously, it’s not your average pen-pal letter, weighing in at 28 pages according to my count. Zadok has some of the more interesting excerpts (and even just the excerpts make for a long post). The one I’ve thus far found most interesting:

Given this difficult situation, not a few members of the Catholic community are asking whether recognition from the civil authorities – necessary in order to function publicly – somehow compromises communion with the universal Church. I am fully aware that this problem causes painful disquiet in the hearts of Pastors and faithful. In this regard I maintain, in the first place, that the requisite and courageous safeguarding of the deposit of faith and of sacramental and hierarchical communion is not of itself opposed to dialogue with the authorities concerning those aspects of the life of the ecclesial community that fall within the civil sphere. There would not be any particular difficulties with acceptance of the recognition granted by civil authorities on condition that this does not entail the denial of unrenounceable principles of faith and of ecclesiastical communion. In not a few particular instances, however, indeed almost always, in the process of recognition the intervention of certain bodies obliges the people involved to adopt attitudes, make gestures and undertake commitments that are contrary to the dictates of their conscience as Catholics. I understand, therefore, how in such varied conditions and circumstances it is difficult to determine the correct choice to be made. For this reason the Holy See, after restating the principles, leaves the decision to the individual Bishop who, having consulted his presbyterate, is better able to know the local situation, to weigh the concrete possibilities of choice and to evaluate the possible consequences within the diocesan community. It could be that the final decision does not obtain the consensus of all the priests and faithful. I express the hope, however, that it will be accepted, albeit with suffering, and that the unity of the diocesan community with its own Pastor will be maintained.

The highlighting is Zadok’s, but I’d have made it anyway. The Pope here has once again displayed his ability to write subtly but forcefully and authoritatively. I’m going to have to print this out and read it – my eyes just won’t take reading this much on a screen unfortunately. I’m now awaiting the Chinese authorities’ response to the letter.

It appears the Pontificator has hung up his blogging spikes. What a sad development for St. Blog’s. I, for my part, am indebted to Fr. Kimel for making me realize just how far one’s brain can stretch and still not encompass all beauty and wonder that is the patrimony of the Church. His frequent postings from wide and varied sources renewed my flagging energy in delving further into the Fathers and the whole breadth of available teaching. You will be missed, Pontificator. Ad multos annos!

Ah, this sounds like something close to heaven. Musica Sacra has posted a brief report on the recent Sacred Music Colloquium and I can only wish someone with musical talent from my diocese had gone. I’d like to have gone, but my musical talent doesn’t extend beyond my grammar-school trumpet days and I wouldn’t want to have taken someone’s seat who could truly have done some good. But oh…

The Masses explored a wide range of options within the Roman Rite. The first Mass was in English, with English propers adapted from the Graduale and Psalm tone by Samuel Weber. The choirs sang Kyrie XVIII, a Pater noster setting by Mahrt, and the Sanctus and Agnus Dei set to chant in English from the Sacramentary. The principle celebrant was Rev. Skeris.

The next day’s Mass was a requiem for the deceased members of the CMAA. The propers were from the Graduale, the ordinary was Mass XVIII, the sequence for the Mass was sung in alternatim, and two motets were sung: Ave Verum by Edward Elgar and “I Am the Resurrection and the Life” by William Croft. The Mass was in Latin.

The remaining Latin Masses were for the feast of Ss. Thomas More and John Fisher (Robert C. Pasley was the principle celebrant) and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. The sung ordinaries in these Masses were from Victoria’s Missa O quam gloriosum and Croce’s Missa sexti toni. Motets were Bruckner’s Os Justi, Tallis’s O nata lux, Monteverdi’s Cantate domino, and Palestrina’s Ego sum panis vivus.

How long, O Lord, must we suffer in the shadows of Haugen and Haas? Some day, hopefully soon, the beauty of our musical heritage will be uncovered again. This effort sounds like a tremendous start. Oh, and they’ve posted pictures here and here as well.

Those are all questions various people have asked about the ever-just-about-to-be-released motu proprio in this long wait. Dr. Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside the Vatican, offers a “reflection on the meaning of the Mass, and a comment on the debate over the restoration of the old liturgy”. His points are very well taken. It isn’t just about Latin, nor about smells-n-bells, nor about chant or any other single human thing. It’s all about God, Christ come to us in the Eucharistic sacrifice and our ability to acknowledge, receive and proclaim that truth. Sometimes we can get caught up in the minutiae of each little difference but forget to proclaim the real core of the discussion – God, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man come down to save and call his flock to him and bring them home by his offering of Himself. If that doesn’t stay at the center and summit of the discussion, all else is lost.

H/T to Carl Olson at Ignatius Insight.

Guilty as charged. Mea culpa. Kevin at biblicalia played David to my Goliath and whacked me right between the eyes with a rock with this post. Indeed, it is so often so easy to focus so closely on the literary tree in front of you that you forget to keep its beauty in the context of its surrounding theological forest. Or, as Fr. Corapi is fond of saying, “pray more, preach less.” Every once in a while I think we all need a reminder of our primary purpose and thus our primary need. Thanks, Kevin – that’s a headache I needed.

Or, as I’m reminded by my friends from the southern States, “all y’all” (I need to spend some quality time south of the Mason-Dixon just to learn the lingo … and maybe eat the food!). Mike Aquilina has referred some of you here, so welcome – please do look around. I hope I got all the dirt swept under the carpets in time…

I must offer a public thanks to Mike for his generous compliment for which I am entirely unworthy. He’s a great guy, a true gentleman and a fantastic author. Plus, he has the day job I’ve always wanted, the lucky bugger…

Gerald wrote a far more quotable quote here than I think he may have realized. In comparing the “bad” parts of the Mass around the turn of the century to the “bad” parts of the commonly found Mass today, he writes:

The backslapping group-hug Mass is popular, no doubt. So is fast food.

That deserves a little thought. Fast food makes you feel all warm-n-fuzzy when you eat it. It gives you a nice rush of energy after you’re done. All this is good, right? Yes, but let’s remember too … fast food tends to be extraordinarily unhealthy if made a regular part of a diet. And that energy rush? Quickly followed by a crash afterwards. This follows as well for the happy-clappy high energy “backslapping” Mass as well – it can “feel” so good while you’re doing it you just don’t realize what you’re missing. As another quote I once read put it, “Mass is meant to raise your spirit, not lift your spirits”. Think about it.

If you’ve been following the Joe Kennedy/Sheila Rausch annulment “reversal” coverage from a distance or only through the mainstream media, you’re probably missing a great opportunity to learn something about the Church and how She works. First, Jimmy Akin drops a lighter on the flammable remains of the Time piece that putatively broke the story. Then, Dr. Ed Peters reminds us (again) that canon law is much different than common law and that we may simply not know all the factors that went into the Roman Rota’s decision. And then, as if this wasn’t enough giggling fun already, Dr. Peters lets us know that Joe Kennedy, from all appearances, never did have the annulment he apparently thought he did. How is that possible? You’ll have to read his post to figure it out. Oh, and he doesn’t spare dropping the hammer for the Rota’s painfully slow handling of the matter either. Even if you couldn’t care less about anything to do with the Kennedys, these are learning opportunities that don’t come along often. In this case, thankfully.

The Diocese of New Hampshire has announced the launch of a new publication, slated to hit mailboxes in late June / early July. In Parable Magazine, the Diocese hopes to “bring[] the Good News of Jesus Christ to all in New Hampshire” and to “look at contemporary issues from a faith perspective.” Despite those rather opaque and non-committal goal statements, it is my fervent hope that this publication helps to bridge the communication gap in this Diocese I have frequently lamented. It is often not that there are not good things being done, but simply that no one seems to know about them. Whether that has something to do with the New England reputation for insularity, I don’t know, but just getting this kind of information in front of people and educating them can only help.

As one blogger pointed out in noting the need for an RSS/Atom feed for any news site, if you don’t push it they won’t come. I find that to be an indictment of the intellectual laziness prevalent in our culture, but it is a stream against which it is perhaps impertinent to try to swim at this time. I say only congratulations to the Diocese and I pray the publication helps to provide the clear, honest orthodox truth to all of us who so desperately need it. You can poke around on Parable’s web site, including previewing the first edition right here.