It'll be interesting to see how all of this plays out on the ground. I'm reminded of the anecdote of a visitor asking John XXIII how many people work at the Vatican, and the pope deadpanning: "About half."
Thank you - a great explainer. Though understandable , I dislike the Secretary of State as central coordinator as that dicastery tends to be the one most necessarily captive to Secular values and concerns
I am not schooled in Canon Law rather a life long Roman Catholic with 12+ years of Catholic education. This explanation, while understandable, I can’t help wonder why the Catholic Church had to be so academic. These writing do not offer transparency for the average reader. Difficult to understand but maybe that was the intention
How would you propose to do it differently? Not a rhetorical question - genuinely curious if you have any ideas about how to do it more simply. I don’t think the answer can be to just not have the Curia - it’s unavoidable that difficult questions will arise at times in different matters, and there has to be a final arbiter if things are to be consistent and sensible in the church. And that can’t all be delegated to the Pope - he’s just one man! So there have to be several departments of people to assist the Pope in the work of governing and serving the Church.
I definitely think there could be streamlining of things, but it seems like that’s what this constitution does. Interested to hear your thoughts!
terrific as usual, gentlemen! Thank you. One note from a proofreader: stationery, not stationary in the last paragraph. At least you know I read the whole thing!
Interesting to see in Article 93 that the Dicastery for Divine Worship has competency to deal with "the regulation and discipline of the sacred liturgy as regards the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite," considering that Traditiones custodes had previously argued that no such form exists. ;)
Traditionis custodes didn't use the term, and said that the reformed Missals are the "unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite". But it didn't say that "no such form exists" with regard to the extraordinary form.
The reason that TC doesn't use "Extraordinary form" is because the term implies a degree of legitimacy for the older usage that TC is explicitly trying to deny. "Extraordinary form" was a neologism coined by Benedict XVI in Summorum pontificum, in expressing that the Roman Rite is a single rite with two expressions: one ordinary (Missal of Paul VI) and one extraordinary (Missal of John XXVII). By stating that the liturgical books of Paul VI and John Paul II constitute the "unique expression...of the Roman Rite," TC abolishes the concept of an "extraordinary" form of the Roman Rite altogether. Indeed, under the logic of TC, the use of the 1962 liturgical books does not constitute a proper "use", "form", or "expression" of the Roman Rite at all, but is rather an aberration that for pastoral reasons is permitted to continue in restricted form for a limited period of time until the faithful accustomed to worshipping under it may be brought back under the umbrella of the 1970 Mass.
Now, I suspect that either 1) this section was written prior to TC and someone forgot to revise it or 2) EF is a handy shorthand and the drafters didn't care enough for precision and consistency of language to come up with better phrasing. I don't see it as abrogating TC or anything like that. It's still funny though.
All previous Roman Missals are historical forms of the Roman rite. Traditionis custodes would be a very stupid document indeed if it said that all Roman Missals before 1970 were not forms of the Roman rite. But I don't think that's what the phrase "unique" is trying to accomplish. It seems that you're taking unique to mean "only". I think the point is that the reformed Missal is different from other expressions and primary over them in that it also accounts for the liturgical reform asked for in Sacrosanctum concilium, and also that it is the definitive usage for us. I do agree that the use of the 1962 Roman Missal is indeed only supposed to continue for a limited amount of time until those attached to it will use the reformed liturgical books.
role essentially unchanged, as I compare Praedicate evangelium to Pastor Bonus. name changed to a dicastery, as with all the others. it is also now supposed to collaborate with the Dicastery for Culture and Education in matters that concern both.
Although the Church is the Body of Christ it has many responsibilities which makes it appear a business rather than a spiritual beacon. I love the Church. I don’t always like the way she does business but I have to remind myself she is the Bride of Christ and God is in control.
It'll be interesting to see how all of this plays out on the ground. I'm reminded of the anecdote of a visitor asking John XXIII how many people work at the Vatican, and the pope deadpanning: "About half."
Guess which half that he was part of with his undercutting of Cardinal Siri.
Love it!
Thank you - a great explainer. Though understandable , I dislike the Secretary of State as central coordinator as that dicastery tends to be the one most necessarily captive to Secular values and concerns
The entire structure for the Argentinian is built on sand. "Amoris Laetitia" is his Achilles heel. A sea change in morality makes him an anti Pope.
Spare us. If he's an anti-pope, then who's the real pope: Taylor Marshall? :-)
Could you guys make a flow chart of this?
We can try on Monday! It’s a good idea. But today our wives have plans for us.
To do chores.
Thanks JD! Enjoy the honey-do lists!
Which shouldn’t require “planning” but which should be part of everyday life … Signed, A Wife. 🤦♀️
*sigh* yes dear whatever you say dear
Signed, Every Husband. 🥃
Ditto this request! In fact...is there an org chart for the Vatican to begin with?
I am not schooled in Canon Law rather a life long Roman Catholic with 12+ years of Catholic education. This explanation, while understandable, I can’t help wonder why the Catholic Church had to be so academic. These writing do not offer transparency for the average reader. Difficult to understand but maybe that was the intention
How would you propose to do it differently? Not a rhetorical question - genuinely curious if you have any ideas about how to do it more simply. I don’t think the answer can be to just not have the Curia - it’s unavoidable that difficult questions will arise at times in different matters, and there has to be a final arbiter if things are to be consistent and sensible in the church. And that can’t all be delegated to the Pope - he’s just one man! So there have to be several departments of people to assist the Pope in the work of governing and serving the Church.
I definitely think there could be streamlining of things, but it seems like that’s what this constitution does. Interested to hear your thoughts!
Me either. What types of things are covered by “state secrecy”? Sounds a little movable to me.
Very interesting! May St. Joseph intercede for an effective, transparent, and holy Roman Curia!
terrific as usual, gentlemen! Thank you. One note from a proofreader: stationery, not stationary in the last paragraph. At least you know I read the whole thing!
Also: "as tasks are developed," which I believe should have been "as texts ..." (paragraph on the DDF).
A very astute friend of mine commented “ re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic “and we both love Pope Francis for the record.
Interesting to see in Article 93 that the Dicastery for Divine Worship has competency to deal with "the regulation and discipline of the sacred liturgy as regards the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite," considering that Traditiones custodes had previously argued that no such form exists. ;)
Hagan lio!
Traditionis custodes didn't use the term, and said that the reformed Missals are the "unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite". But it didn't say that "no such form exists" with regard to the extraordinary form.
The reason that TC doesn't use "Extraordinary form" is because the term implies a degree of legitimacy for the older usage that TC is explicitly trying to deny. "Extraordinary form" was a neologism coined by Benedict XVI in Summorum pontificum, in expressing that the Roman Rite is a single rite with two expressions: one ordinary (Missal of Paul VI) and one extraordinary (Missal of John XXVII). By stating that the liturgical books of Paul VI and John Paul II constitute the "unique expression...of the Roman Rite," TC abolishes the concept of an "extraordinary" form of the Roman Rite altogether. Indeed, under the logic of TC, the use of the 1962 liturgical books does not constitute a proper "use", "form", or "expression" of the Roman Rite at all, but is rather an aberration that for pastoral reasons is permitted to continue in restricted form for a limited period of time until the faithful accustomed to worshipping under it may be brought back under the umbrella of the 1970 Mass.
Now, I suspect that either 1) this section was written prior to TC and someone forgot to revise it or 2) EF is a handy shorthand and the drafters didn't care enough for precision and consistency of language to come up with better phrasing. I don't see it as abrogating TC or anything like that. It's still funny though.
All previous Roman Missals are historical forms of the Roman rite. Traditionis custodes would be a very stupid document indeed if it said that all Roman Missals before 1970 were not forms of the Roman rite. But I don't think that's what the phrase "unique" is trying to accomplish. It seems that you're taking unique to mean "only". I think the point is that the reformed Missal is different from other expressions and primary over them in that it also accounts for the liturgical reform asked for in Sacrosanctum concilium, and also that it is the definitive usage for us. I do agree that the use of the 1962 Roman Missal is indeed only supposed to continue for a limited amount of time until those attached to it will use the reformed liturgical books.
"Traditionis custodes would be a very stupid document indeed if it said that all Roman Missals before 1970 were not forms of the Roman rite."
You said it.
Yep. it is.
What happened to Eastern Churches?
role essentially unchanged, as I compare Praedicate evangelium to Pastor Bonus. name changed to a dicastery, as with all the others. it is also now supposed to collaborate with the Dicastery for Culture and Education in matters that concern both.
Although the Church is the Body of Christ it has many responsibilities which makes it appear a business rather than a spiritual beacon. I love the Church. I don’t always like the way she does business but I have to remind myself she is the Bride of Christ and God is in control.