Interview with Archbp. Ranjith: those who resist Summorum Pontificum guilty of the sin of pride

WDTPRS ^ | November 5, 2007 | Fr. Zuhlsdorf

[nickcarraway]

Wow, this could be an uncharacteristically strong reaction from Rome. Of course, Rome has to share some of the blame, because they have taught the bishops to be disobediant, by continually allowing them to be.

[livius]

That's very true. Rome's understated - well, make that nonexistent - reaction to defiance has encouraged them. A poster on Fr. Z's blog who goes by the name of Athanasius (is that "our" Athanasius?) said the following:

The problem is in the fact that many Bishops of ill will still follow the Weakland doctrine. Weakland ignored explicit instructions from the Holy See not to wreckovate his Cathedral in Miluakee back in 2002, and nothing was done. That was a sign to every other progressive Bishop that when the Holy See puts out instructions like Redemptionis Sacramentum, they are DOA and nothing will be done.

I think the bishops learned this lesson very well and they are pretty confident that nothing will happen to them this time, either, no matter how defiant they are. We shall see.

[RobbyS]

It is a title. If that offends your puritanical sensibilities, I say, that is your prerogative.

[marshmallow]

The title simply indicates his position in the Vatican and therefore his rank. He has authority in certain areas.

It says nothing about his personal virtues or holiness.

Is there a problem?

[FloreatIacobus]

"Look, I don’t want to criticize the ‘Novus Ordo’. But I have to laugh when I hear it said, even by friends, that in a some parish, a priest is a ‘saint’ because of his homily or how well he speaks. Holy Mass is sacrifice, gift, mystery, independently of the priest celebrating it. It is important, nay rather, fundamental that the priest step aside: the protagonist of the Mass is Christ. So I really don’t understand these Eucharistic celebrations turned into shows with dances, songs or applause, as frequently happens with the Novus Ordo."

His Grace hits the nail right on the head.

One of the major reasons that some Priests don't like the T.L.M. is that it leaves them with little opportunity to add in their personal little touches, it forces them simply to become alter Christus - of course that's one of the major reasons that I love the T.L.M.

[maryz]

It’s the applause that really makes me cringe! I’ve quoted it before — from that eminent liturgist (and the official ones could take a lesson here), Miss Manners: “If God wishes to applaud in church, He may. From anyone else, it’s inappropriate!”

[A.A. Cunningham]

I’ll be mailing a copy of this to Chaput.

[Oratam]

I feel I need to be fair to the priest who played Fr. Dyer in The Exorcist, William J. O'Malley, S.J. He served as techinical advisor to the film as well as providing a very sensitive portrayal as Fr. Damien Karras's friend. (Contrast the "caberet" performance I joked about with his final scenes -- talk about "character development"!)

Yes, he's still teaching at Fordham/Fordham Prep. He's also quite a prolific author and, if the titles are any indication, a faithful priest: Books by William J. O'Malley, S.J. at Amazon.com

[will of the people]

Trust me- puritanical sensibilities are not the basis of anything I write

I’m not offended- just amused- if my amusement offends your (insert adjective here) sensibilities, my apologies.

Sincerely,

Will
Profound Denier of Puritanical Sensibilities, Inestimable Observer of Seeming Inconsistency, Verbose Fun-Poker at Religious Pomposity, Full Exerciser of Proffered Prerogatives, Exalted Tongue in Cheek Poster, Sincere Apologizer to Titular Defenders, Occasional Employer of Emoticons :)

[RobbyS]

Methinks you protesteth too much. The title may be pompous, the man is not evidently so, which is what you have said.

[LordBridey]

He has done exactly what he was not supposed to do: he has imposed a limit. A parish must have at least 50 registered members requesting the Mass to get any consideration.

We have run into the same problem. Our pastor announced that he would begin saying the TLM soon, which I thought was his perogative, but the bishop has placed some obstacles, namely: forty families requesting it ( easily overcome ), but also some kind of six month preparation classes. So much for the spirit of the MP which I thought took the matter out of the bishops's hands.

[will of the people]

“Methinks you protesteth too much”

Hey- I’m a ‘protestant’
Apparently unlike Rome, I take my titles seriously :)

[ArrogantBustard]

I used to have a D&D character with a name almost that long ...

[RobbyS]

Yeah, like “will of the people.”

[will of the people]

that’s only as a freeper

everywhere else I go by

“will. . . .of God”

please note the lower case ‘w’- that’s inestimable protestant humility at work

[red irish]

amen to that

[livius]

A six month preparation class! For the congregation?

You folks need to get in touch with Rome. You’re absolutely right, that’s not his prerogative.

[LordBridey]

No. Not the congregation. The priest is supposed to prepare for six months, although he says he is pretty much ready. I think it is some kind of stalling tactic on the part of the chancery. This bishop has always been opposed to the TLM. This dioces has probably not seen a licit TLM mass in nearly forty years.

[livius]

That’s ridiculous. I don’t think he has the right to demand that even of the priests, and I bet he’ll get slapped down.

Our anti-TLM bishop came out with some elaborate “test” he was going to administer to priests who wanted to say it. (Not that he cares about the virtually non-English speaking priests who come in and say the NO...) He never revealed the contents of this test to anyone, of course, so they couldn’t prepare for it.

However, in practice, the only priest who has taken it said that the bishop just listened to his reading of the page and said okay. This was after a bitter meeting on the subject, though, so maybe the bishop just decided it wasn’t worth fighting about. Or maybe he came to his senses, and yours will do likewise.

But the six-month course (taught by whom? the anti-TLM bishop?) sounds unreasonable. Our priest here is going to a one-week course presented by the Christ the King Institute and that’s more than sufficient.

BTW, do you mind metioning what diocese you live in?

[LordBridey]

But the six-month course (taught by whom? the anti-TLM bishop?) sounds unreasonable. Our priest here is going to a one-week course presented by the Christ the King Institute and that’s more than sufficient.

Yes, I suggested that the pastor attend an FSSP workshop that is five days long. I don't know exactly what the bishop meant by six months but the priest has indicated that he could get around that. I don't think the TLM is on the front burner, with Advent and Christmas coming up, but I think this priest is serious about saying one mass per weekend in the extraordinary form, at some point in the near future. I wasn't there when the announcement was made ( I was attending the TLM in the adjacent diocese ) but according to my daughter he was asking his parisioners to have an open mind and get ready. The impression he gave then was that it would be easy to do, it was his decision, that parishioners had asked him to. Then, here comes this other stuff from the bishop. So, one gets the impression that there is at least a little hostility. My son told me that during choir rehearsal the topic came up, and " Why would we want to return to the dark ages?" was a response that met with some agreement. It will take a little time to get the appreciation happening, but it will eventually be all good. I am in Pueblo, Colorado.