[Catholic Caucus] Embarrassing attempt at bullying in Atlanta

Fr. Z's Blog ^ | February 10, 2023 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[ebb tide]

[Catholic Caucus] Embarrassing attempt at bullying in Atlanta

A note to the priests and people of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, where someone in the chancery is trying to bully you into submission.

Someone whom I gather is the “priest secretary” to the Archbishop of Atlanta, and who is also the director of liturgy for that archdiocese, sent to the priests of the archdiocese a memo about: “Canonical regulations and liturgical changes from the Office of Divine Worship, announced Feb. 6, 2023”.  Yes, “Feb.” in the title.

The memo is riddled with errors of format, grammar, spelling, law and reason.

For example, there are numerous misspellings.  Footnote numbers are placed before the item cited.   The syntax of one of the run-on sentences is so scrambled that it is hard to understand even what the writer was attempting to say.

It also is not signed by anyone.  Instead there is given only an email address.  I looked it up on the archdiocesan website.

The memo says: New legislation in the Archdiocese of Atlanta.

The first part is about “pro populo” Masses.  It isn’t our concern, though it is a mess.

For something to be legislation, it has to be issued in the proper form.   This embarrassing memo has none of that.

There’s more, concerning other matters.  This is enough.

Here is the text as it appears in the memo.

Traditional Latin Mass and Novus Ordo

New legislation in the Archdiocese of Atlanta

In the past months, some of you have sent questions regarding the Latin Mass and Novus Ordo masses “ad orientem”. The Motu Propio Traditionis Custodes deals with the Missale Romanum of 1962 only, it does not deal with the entire liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council. The Reform of the Second Vatican Council permits priests to celebrate the Novus Ordo ad orientem in Latin and in the vernacular. However, it leaves to the Diocesan bishop if he allows his priests to celebrate pubicly in those forms as they see fitting in their ministry to the people of God or “ad casum“, meaning only with the explicit request of the priest and the explicit permission from the Diocesan bishop, in this case the Archbishop. If approved, the Archbishop must seek the permission of the Vatican for each request. Historically, the request have been denied.

Now, the sacraments and sacramentals in accord with the Missale Romanum of 1962 are celebrated at Saint Francis de Sales parish in Mableton, GA., where the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter serves so diligently. At Saint Monica parish in Duluth, GA., only the sacrament of the Eucharist in celebrated in accord with the Missale Romanum of 1962 on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation at 8:15 AM. All the other sacraments and sacramentals are in the vernacular.

After consultation with the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, starting on the Solemnity of the Resurrection of the Lord, (April 9, 2023) all the priests and bishops assigned or residing in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Atlanta that want to celebrate publicly:

1. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass (except: Saint Francis de Sales and Saint Monica)
2. Novus Ordo ad orientem in Latin
3. Novus Ordo ad orientem in the vernacular
4. Novus Ordo versus populum in Latin
5. All sacraments and sacramentals in the form previous to the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council

must request, by formal letter, permission from the Archbishop. The letter should include the rationale for such celebration. I urge you to read or re-read the Apostolic Letter Desiderio Desideravi, on the liturgical formation of the people of God, and personally get involved in the decision-making that guarantees the decorum, order and nobility of your liturgical celebrations at your parishes and places of worship.

This deserves scorn.

The writer seems to think that “The Reform of the Second Vatican Council” is a… I dunno… a “thing”.  Furthermore, “The Reform” didn’t “permit” priests to say Mass ad orientem and in Latin “and in the vernacular”.  Priests were bound by the rubrics and law of the time.  What “The Reform” “permitted” was that – according to future legislation – there could be some room given to the vernacular but that Latin should be retained.

Priests do not have to seek permission to follow canon law (which says that Mass is to be celebrated in Latin, or another approved language) and to follow the rubrics (which the pro-Conciliar Missale Romanum indicates as ad orientem worship).

This memo is an exercise in bullying.  It has no legislative force.  It is a list of wishes on the part of the writer.   Here is what one of my canonist friends wrote about it.

What a load of draconian nonsense. But par for the course in this day and age. It deserves to be ignored as much as possible: force the Archbishop to act and discipline or remove priests for the “offense” of offering Mass according to the rubrics of the Missal. And, of course, they’re sowing the seeds that will force them, in ten years, to reap the whirlwind as the younger priests come of age. If the Archbishop can mandate versus populum, then his successor can mandate ad orientem by the same logic. This is 70’s Soviet ecclesiology. It should be obeyed with the same fervor that most folks in the waning days of Communism obeyed. In due time (I believe in short order) there will be our Gdansk shipyards, our Pan-European Picnic, and our tearing down of the Berlin Wall.

He makes a good point: IF the Archbishop can mandate X, the next Archbishop can mandate un-X.  The same applies to draconian measures from Rome.  If the order of law is ignored and if tradition is ignored, then chaos will be the result.  Disobedience at every level will follow, and rightly so.

In the long run, people will suffer.  Eventually they will say, “Enough!”

[ebb tide]

Ping

[Campion]

Neither (a) the celebration of the Novus Ordo in Latin or (b) the celebration of the Novus Ordo ad orientem require the approval of the diocesan bishop or of Rome. This is bogus "law".