In the latest NZ Catholic we see news that the ‘old’ Our Father – that is, the Our Father which begins thus:

‘Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name…’

…is to be the only Our Father with recognitio from the Holy See.  In fact, we now know that the NZBC (New Zealand Bishops’ Conference) had applied, in the New Zealand version of the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal, for recognitio for the ‘ecumenical’ Our Father.  You probably know it well, it’s the Our Father that has – apart from certain parishes obedient to the Holy See – been used in all NZ dioceses except Christchurch for something like the last 20 years.

Of course, this ‘ecumenical’ Our Father never had recognitio in the first place.  It was, in effect, an aberration in the liturgical practice of NZ dioceses.  Some might say, one of many.  However, Marty digresses.

Our bishops will, of course, be obedient to the Holy Father.  It only remains for us to observe the form of this obedience…in practical terms, parishes will, I suppose, simply employ the traditional Our Father from Advent.  Of course no-one would consider disobeying the bishops - or the Apostolic See for that matter.  Given that it’s topical, here’s an excerpt from The Service of Authority and Obedience, issued by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life on May 28 2008:

Obedience as listening
5. “Listen, child” (Pr 1:8). First of all, obedience is an attitude of a son or daughter. It is that particular kind of listening that only a son or daughter can do in listening to his or her parent, because it is enlightened by the certainty that the parent has only good things to say and give to him or her. This is a listening, full of the trust, that makes a son or daughter accept the parent’s will, sure that it will be for his or her own good.

What concerns me a little is this: in how many other areas, and in how many other instances, have we been misled when it comes to what happens in the Church?  In how many instances have the bishops gone so far as to ban what is permitted, and allow that which is not, for example?  A perusal of Redemptionis Sacramentum would furnish one with numerous examples of other, unapproved practices being permitted in New Zealand which are expressly forbidden in that document.

I mean, this whole Our Father thing has really shaken my confidence.  Since learning of it, I’ve also found this – as just one example:

[123.]The vestment proper to the Priest celebrant at Mass, and in other sacred actions directly connected with Mass unless otherwise indicated, is the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole. Likewise the Priest, in putting on the chasuble according to the rubrics, is not to omit the stole. All Ordinaries should be vigilant in order that all usage to the contrary be eradicated.

[124.] A faculty is given in the Roman Missal for the Priest concelebrants at Mass other than the principal concelebrant (who should always put on a chasuble of the prescribed colour), for a just reason such as a large number of concelebrants or a lack of vestments, to omit “the chasuble, using the stole over the alb”. Where a need of this kind can be foreseen, however, provision should be made for it insofar as possible. Out of necessity the concelebrants other than the principal celebrant may even put on white chasubles. For the rest, the norms of the liturgical books are to be observed.

[126.] The abuse is reprobated whereby the sacred ministers celebrate Holy Mass or other rites without sacred vestments or with only a stole over the monastic cowl or the common habit of religious or ordinary clothes, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books, even when there is only one minister participating. In order that such abuses be corrected as quickly as possible, Ordinaries should take care that in all churches and oratories subject to their jurisdiction there is present an adequate supply of liturgical vestments made in accordance with the norms.

So many times I’ve seen concelebrants with just a stole, on occasion in only a stole (i.e. without an alb).  Has this been permitted, or do the bishops just not know about it?  It’s all a bit worrying.  Do the bishops not care about the sacred liturgy any more?  My confidence has taken a pounding with these recent revelations.

In the ’90s, at the requiem of one New Zealand bishop, he was carried out of his own Cathedral to the haunting strains, not of the antiphon in Paradisum, but Frank Sinatra’s I did it my way.  What a lovely thing – what would be more lovely is if they were to do things the Catholic way.

We’ve been waiting for it for a while now.  The nay-sayers (and there are a few in NZ) out there were telling us to brace ourselves, for the new instruction wasn’t going to be positive.  They were on the rooftops, on the bandwagons, some even in the pulpits (or at least in the ear of Important Clergy) saying that the conservatives (whatever that means) were going to get a shock, that Benedict XVI had heard the cries in the wilderness, and that the liberals (whatever that means) would once again hold sway.

They make it seem like a fight.  For most Traditionalist Catholics, a fight is the last thing on their minds.  They tend to want the liturgy back.  For me, the discovery of Tradition has been like an opening of the windows, an aggiornamento, if you will, where the fresh air of Catholic liturgy has blown away the tired detritus of cobbled-together community celebrations, tired ’70s sepia-toned banners, outdated Haugen/Hass/Ferrell Mass tunes…you know the deal.

The explanation and clarification of the motu proprio ‘Summorum Pontificum‘ was released on 13 May; and is called Universae Ecclesiae - To the Universal Church.  A good title.  Click the title for the full text.  Some interesting elements for possible discussion follow…

Here’s something for New Zealand:

3. The Holy Father, having recalled the concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs in caring for the Sacred Liturgy and in their recognition of liturgical books, reaffirms the traditional principle, recognised from time immemorial and necessary to be maintained into the future, that “each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi).”

And then there’s this:

8. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy. The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church, and has the aim of:

a.) offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved;

b.) effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees;

c.) promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church.

I love it.  The liturgy can promote reconciliation eh?  Too right it can, if people are disposed to it.  One should also observe that this reconciliation is, primarily, concerned with the liturgy.

Ooh, a bit more for New Zealand:

14. It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

Is it just?  How about that then?  Or this:

21. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

This one is very interesting.  I’ve seen the Latin, and it is far more clear than the English here.  Perhaps the ICEL team from the late ’60s got hold of this.  Here it is in the Latin with a clearer translation:

21. Ordinarii enixe rogantur ut clericis instituendis occasionem praebeant accommodatam artem celebrandi in forma extraordinaria acquirendi, quod potissimum pro Seminariis valet, in quibus providebitur ut sacrorum alumni convenienter instituantur, Latinum discendo sermonem et, adiunctis id postulantibus, ipsam Ritus Romani formam extraordinariam.

21 – Ordinaries are strenuously (enixe) asked that they offer to clerics (clericis) to be trained up (instituendis) the opportunity for acquiring adequate ars celebrandi… art of celebrating… in the Extraordinary Form, which point has force above all (potissimum) for Seminaries, in which provision will be made that the students of holy things are to be suitably (convenienter) trained, by learning the Latin language, and,  as additional circumstances demand it (adiunctis id postulantibus), the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite itself.

Our seminarians will be pleased, I am sure, with what will logically follow on from this in the Marist and national seminaries from next year.

Hopefully this will clear up any confusion, on the part of those opposed to tradition, that the Tradition of the Church is to be held dear.