Thanks for posting that. It was everything I expected it to be. It was profound and beautiful and it rightly answered all the arguments over Liturgical tradition by, repeatedly,positively citing The Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul and living tradition.
I suspect there will be a lot of gnashing of teeth in rad trad territory but that is to be expected. Their ideas of tradition are personal and opposed to the Church Jesus established.
I could cite many paragraphs I loved that I know will set rad trad teeth on edge - 12,15,24,35,37,39,40,41,42,43,48,49,52,54,62, 93 etc, but paragraph 3 summarised it all. The reform called for by the Second Vatican Council was legitimate. It was not an artificial act by Commies and Queers but rather an orderly development guided by the Holy Spirit and it is clear there will be no going back.
I found it interesting paragraph 15 quoted part of the Eucharistic Prayer which was mocked in here the other day...
I really loved the emphasis on Latin and Gregorian Chant. I miss it greatly and I have been waiting (semi-patiently) to hear that in the Pauline Rite for over 40 years.
Sadly, I think Pope Benedict's Encyclical will be savagely attacked by rad trads because he understands Tradition and tradition and they don't and they will label him a liberal or a sell-out or some such nonsense.
However, I loved it and I feel vindicated, as I knew I would be, because for years I have been trying to defend the Pope, the Council, and the Mass and I knew I had to be right simply because I chose the side of the Living Magisterium against the personal opinions of those who think they know better than Holy Mother Church.
Thanks be to God for our great Pope and Church
The Pope chooses to lead by persuasion and example rather than by issuing orders. I think this is admirable.
If that is the case then his diocese should set an example for all. Why not implement his suggestions regarding chant and Latin and for that matter the ad orientem tradition uniformly in Rome and at papal masses everywhere?
I didn't see anything about ad orientum. Maybe that will come with the Motu Propio. And I must admit that I'd rather him impose his will, because I seriously doubt that anything will change the status quo.
Bornacatholic, I recall you expending some energy in these comboxes deflecting efforts to pigeonhole you in one category or another. I would encourage you, in the discussion that follows, to extend like consideration to those you classify as 'rad trads' or 'trads'.
"I found it interesting paragraph 15 quoted part of the Eucharistic Prayer which was mocked in here the other day..."
Is there an argument you are wanting to make here? My point was that the English translation of these prayers, at points, is stylistically hideous, not that their content is objectionable. Do you have a quarrel with that?
Bornacatholic, what's with this gloating, self-congratulatory tone about feeling 'vindicated' and knowing that you would be vis-a-vis the 'rad trads', etc.? To be Catholic is to be a member of the universal Church. We're all in this together, are we not? So what's up with this ... what can I call it? ... posturing? Do you think those you call 'rad trads' or 'trads' do not love the Pope? Do you think I am a 'rad trad' -- whatever that is? Do you think I do not love the Pope?
"Why not implement his suggestions regarding chant and Latin and for that matter the ad orientem tradition uniformly in Rome and at papal masses everywhere?"
Mr. Williams,
Good to hear from you again! But, seriously, do you think this will happen? We all know what the Holy Father's personal views are on the Mass, Gregorian Chant, on the ad orientem celebration of the liturgy, on Latin, on his desire for a generous universal indult for the Traditional Latin Rite alongside the still-not-stabilized Novus Ordo, etc. Yet why do you think it is that the Holy Father himself continues to celebrate his Masses versus populum when he is free to do as he pleases? Think about it.
As to leading "by persuasion and example rather than by issuing orders," I have only this to say: while I may agree in terms questions of leadership style, in terms of questions of principle, the decisive one issue is this: "Sine poena nulla lex" ("Where there is no enforcement there is no law").
Bornacatholic, I recall you expending some energy in these comboxes deflecting efforts to pigeonhole you in one category or another. I would encourage you, in the discussion that follows, to extend like consideration to those you classify as 'rad trads' or 'trads'.
*Dear Dr. Yes, I did. I object to the idea there is only one way to be a traditionalist. I think of myself every bit as traditional as those who label themselves that.
"I found it interesting paragraph 15 quoted part of the Eucharistic Prayer which was mocked in here the other day..."
Is there an argument you are wanting to make here? My point was that the English translation of these prayers, at points, is stylistically hideous, not that their content is objectionable. Do you have a quarrel with that?
* I am in favor of accurate and beautiful translations. I am a big fan of WDTPRS by Fr. Zuhlsdorf. However, I was struck by the fact that the Pope, twice, used the words of the Euch. prayer which you mocked as something the UN might have generated but he certainly didn't mock them. Heck, I could mock prayers from the Old Missal if I decided to but is that really a good idea?
Bornacatholic, what's with this gloating language of self-congratulatory feeling 'vindicated' and knowing that you would be vis-a-vis the 'rad trads'?
* I have been defending the Pope,the Council, and the Mass for a long time. During that time I have been called all sorts of names and have been told I had no idea what Tradition or Liturgical tradition was and that I was part of an evil attempt to protestantise the Church.
* After reading the Encyclical, I felt vindicated because my defense of the Living Magisterium has been proven correct - as I knew it would be. If it is wrong or unorthodox to feel vindicated by the Church then I plead guilty 
To be Catholic is to be a member of the universal Church. We're all in this together, are we not?
* I think it clear there are a number of rad trads who do not think we are all in this together. They specialise in attacking and criticising the Pope,The Council, and The Mass as heretical, unorthodox and evil. I was addressing those men. I was certainly not addressing traditional traditionalists.
So what's up with this posturing?
* It isn't posturing. It is Joy.
*I have long argued it is the Church which decides what is and isn't Tradition and Liturgical tradition. This Encyclical makes it crystal clear the Second Vatican Council and the reform of the Mass are acts of Liturgical tradition solidly anchored in Tradition. It is a total repudiation of the imagined "case" the rad trads have made against H.M. Church.
*There can be no doubt this Encyclical will set on edge the teeth of innumerable soi disant trads. They will attack it and call the Pope all manner of nasty names. It is also the death knell for the sspx. There is no way Mons. Fellay will be able to convince his followers an agreement can be made with a Pope they must, after this Encyclical,now consider a deracinated liberal.
Do you think I do not love the Pope?
* Yes. I think you love the Pope.
Well, I have to say my bubble is burst. Waiting 17 months for a document from the man who wrote books such as "The Spirit of the Liturgy" and prefaces to books by U.M. Lang and Msgr. Gamber I expected something forceful to kick start the reform of the reform. I do this document as laying the theological foundation for the reform, but in the immediate life of the typical American parish I don't see this accomplishing anything.
Sacramentum Caritatis is a profound reflection on the nature of the mass and the Eucharist and worthy of meditation. But the force behind any of the key points (latin, chant, true active participation, etc.) are just personal suggestion spoken in generalities. This means in the typical diocese and parish the Holy Father's intentions will be simply ignored.
"I do THINK..." should be how it reads in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
"This Encyclical makes it crystal clear..."
It is not a Papal Encyclical (is it?), but a "POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION".
==
It is not a Papal Encyclical (is it?), but a "POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION".
*Yes. You are right, brother. Thanks for the correction.
..From Second Exodus....
Apostolic Exhortation
A letter written by the Pope to the Church encouraging its people to take some particular action.
Because apostolic exhortations do not define the development of doctrine, they are lower in formal authority than encyclical letters, which are directed to the whole Church and which may define development of doctrine.
A recent example would be Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation, Ecclesia in America, January 22, 1999, encouraging the faithful to seek the living Christ and find conversion, communion and solidarity within the context of the Great Jubilee and the new evangelization.
Vatican documents include, in descending order of formal authority: apostolic constitutions, encyclical letters, encyclical epistles, apostolic exhortations, apostolic letters, letters and messages.
I was reading news articles on the Apostolic Exhortation.
A Quiz...based on a passage from:
"Pope reflects on Eucharist, makes concrete suggestions for Mass
http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0701411.htm
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service".
Read the following....
What Cindy Wooden said Benedict XVI wrote:
"Celebrating the Eucharist, he said, "the church is able to celebrate and adore the mystery of Christ" who is present in the bread and wine through the power of the Holy Spirit."
What Benedict XVI wrote:
"[...] the Church is able to celebrate and adore the mystery of Christ present in the Eucharist precisely because Christ first gave himself to her in the sacrifice of the Cross."
Notice any important difference?
Perhaps it is just me, but maybe not.
I am not saying they are responsible, but does not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops own Catholic News Service?
I am surprised it got past the editorial team. It seems quite wrong to me.
==
Please note the words of the Holy Father:
From the varied forms of the early centuries, still resplendent in the rites of the Ancient Churches of the East, up to the spread of the Roman rite; from the clear indications of the Council of Trent and the Missal of Saint Pius V to the liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council ...
There is nothing here to suggest that ANYTHING "called for" by the Second Vatican Council in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy has been faithfully and successfully implemented. Remember, the Missal used throughout the Council was the Missal of 1962, and the reforms mandated by Vatican II were approved by the likes of liturgical experts such as Louis Bouyer and later founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, even though they later became utterly jaded by the direction Archbishop Bugnini took things under the Concilium. In fact, there is nothing in the present Exhortation to detract from the former Cardinal Ratzinger's Preface to the French edition of Msgr. Klaus Gamber's Reform of the Roman Liturgy, where he implicitly questions the very authority of Paul VI to suppress the traditional Latin Rite and supplant it by a new one cobbled together by liturgical experts. This isn't to question the validity of Masses celebrated according to the 1969 Missal, but to follow the Holy Father himself in calling into question the rupture in liturgical tradition that it, along with its aftermath of innovations, have introduced.
"13. März 2007, 15:36
http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=16228
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION "SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS""
==
Heck, I could mock prayers from the Old Missal if I decided to but is that really a good idea?
It would be a sacrilege to do so in certain contexts, such as in an Apostolic Exhortation, and potential idiocy not to do so in others, as in evaluating ICEL translations. 
The development of the eucharistic rite
3. If we consider the bimillenary history of God's Church, guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, we can gratefully admire the orderly development of the ritual forms in which we commemorate the event of our salvation. From the varied forms of the early centuries, still resplendent in the rites of the Ancient Churches of the East, up to the spread of the Roman rite; from the clear indications of the Council of Trent and the Missal of Saint Pius V to the liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council: in every age of the Church's history the eucharistic celebration, as the source and summit of her life and mission, shines forth in the liturgical rite in all its richness and variety.The Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held from 2-23 October 2005 in the Vatican, gratefully acknowledged the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this rich history. In a particular way, the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church's life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (5). The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.
* Maybe it is me, but I think the question of the Liturgy is settled by the words I bolded.
* I think the last line refers to unauthorised changes to the Liturgy approved by the competent authorities and not to the reform itself.
* Footnote 6..refers to this speech
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/
m...05.htm#Vatican2
*And in that speech, Pope Benedict professes truths many who call themselves traditionalists reject as errors of modernism.
* Those who engage in a fantasy the Second Vatican Council will be repudiated, or that it taught heresy, or that the reform of the Missal was not within Tradition - as Pope Benedict himself has said it was - will not likely ever be satisfied.
*They will forever be doomed to racing across the wilds, ever further away from Rome, trying to capture a traditionalist chimera which exists only in their imagination.
*For some, when H.M. Church speaks the reaction is not Roma locuta est, causa finita est it is a line from a Peggy Lee Song, Is that all there is?
Paul, that's a good catch. Cindy Wooden's "paraphrase" introduces the "consubstantiation" or impanation heresy that Jesus is "in" the bread and wine, rather than the doctrine of transubstantion whereby there isn't any more bread and wine, just Jesus hidden in the accidents of bread and wine.
Pope Paul VI.. The Mass is the Same
4. How could such a change be made?
It is due to the will expressed by
the Ecumenical Council held not long ago...... The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent...It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante's improvisation... Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: The Feast of Faith:
...Those who cling to the "Tridentine Missal" have a faulty view of the historical facts. Yet at the same time, the way in which the renewed Missal was presented is open to much criticism. We must say to the "Tridentines" that the Church's liturgy is alive, like the Church herself, and is thus always involved in a process of maturing which exhibits greater and lesser changes. Four hundred years is far too young an age for the Catholic liturgy - because in fact it reaches right back to Christ and the apostles and has come down to us from that time in a single, constant process. The Missal can no more be mummified than the Church herself.
Yet, with all its advantages, the new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual grown process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth, and it has resulted in the nonsensical notion that Trent and Pius V had "produced" a Missal four hundred years ago. The Catholic liturgy was thus reduced to the level of a mere product of modern times. This loss of perspective is really disturbing.
Although very few of those who express their uneasiness have a clear picture of these interrelated factors, there is an instinctive grasp of the fact that liturgy cannot be the result of Church regulations, let alone professional erudition, but, to be true to itself, must be the fruit of the Church's life and vitality.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents in concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.
In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church's earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer.
*So, it is the same Mass,and the same Missal,only reformed. That is just what Pope Paul VI,and then Johannes Paulus Magnus, and now, Pope Benedict have been telling us all along.
*And innumerable traditionalists have told me just the opposite.
*Now, who am I supposed to believe, the Popes or their opponents?
From SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS:
"The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.(6)"
-
Endnote: "(6) I am referring here to the need for a hermeneutic of continuity also with regard to the correct interpretation of the liturgical development which followed the Second Vatican Council: cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005): AAS 98 (2006), 44-45."
=
Comment:
My question is, why does this seem so obscure? Is it the translation? (I did notice the old ICEL mass English in the document, but that may not be the problem). Does anyone know what Pope Benedict XVI is talking about? What does "without the introduction of artificial discontinuities" mean in this context? Who is doing the 'introducing'? I did not find the Address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005) helpful in trying to formulate an answer. What am I missing?
==
Plainly, what are "artificial discontinuities" in this regard?
==
Jordan Potter, thanks for answering the quiz. You are right.
The way she expressed it (the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) is contrary to Transubstantiation.
==
“…referring here to the need for a hermeneutic of continuity…”
What about the need for ‘praxis of continuity’ in things pertaining to the Roman rite?
Not that I want to appear anti-hermeneutical, re: “correct interpretation of the liturgical development”.
There are 'discontinuities', and then there are 'artificial discontinuities'. Apparently.
==
Liturgically speaking, we should strive for a ‘praxis of continuity’, versus ‘a praxis of discontinuity and rupture’.
==
"... but I think the question of the Liturgy is settled by the words I bolded."
If you mean the validity of the Mass celebrated according to the 1969 Missal, I have no quarrel. But if you mean that this settles the question of the Novus Ordo as the rite mandated by Vatican II, I disagree.
First, you would be hard pressed to find many Fathers of the Second Vatican Council outside of the coterie of Bugnini liturgical revolutionaries who were enthused about the 1969 Missal. Most were appalled.
Second, considering the changes over the last three-and-a-half decades, there is little about the Novus Ordo that can be considered settled. I would question whether it can be called an established and stable rite for another couple of hundred years (the criteria Pius V referenced for a rite to be insuppressible).
Third, regardless of the Missal of 1969, the Holy Father appears to be of the opinion, which I share, that a diversity of Western liturgical rites can legitimately co-exist, including the Missal of 1962. In my post of March 12th ("The Old Mass and the Great Thaw"), Tom Woods quotes the Holy Father's well-known words: "I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted to those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden, and makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."
Fourth, there is some difference between the opinions that the Holy Father permits himself to express in the capacity of Universal Pastor and those he feels free to express by way of personal opinion at various liturgical conferences and like venues. (Cf. my earlier point to Mr. Williams on a related issue.)
In short, if the Vatican II Mass of Pope Benedict XVI is what you want, what you may ultimately end up with 150 years hence is something considerably different from the Novus Ordo as celebrated in most parishes today. Do I hear a loud 'Amen'?
And if that "reform of the reform" called for by the Holy Father sees the light of day, it will likely be because the Church has come to its senses about promoting the traditional Latin Rite, which is the only benchmark and index of reform that the Council ever had (and which we today have nearly lost).
"Liturgically speaking, we should strive for a ‘praxis of continuity’, versus ‘a praxis of discontinuity and rupture’."
Right, Paul, most assuredly. Moreover, we can't simply impose a "discourse of continuity" upon our contemporary "praxis of discontinuity" and think we've achieved the sought-after "reform of the reform," which is what I fear from the banalities I so often read. There has to be real reform to bring practice in conformity to tradition.
Please note: I'm not saying we have to "turn back the clock and ignore the Council." I'm saying that practice has to be brought into conformity to tradition according to the mandate of the Council Fathers. That would bring continuity as well as reform.
Talking about a "praxis of continuity" in terms of what we have in most parishes these days is like talking about a "new springtime of renewal in the Church" with reference to Kenneth C. Jones' Index of Leading Catholic Indicators (2003).
First, you would be hard pressed to find many Fathers of the Second Vatican Council outside of the coterie of Bugnini liturgical revolutionaries who were enthused about the 1969 Missal. Most were appalled
* Pope Benedict writes the Reform is orderly development which has been guided by The Holy Spirit. I do not understand how that can be understood to be true if, in fact, what we Christians have witnessed was a revolution. Either the P.S.A.E. has defeated that rash and unjust attack or the Pope was lying in this P.S.A.E.
* I go by official acts of the Living Magisterium and it is clear to me the Popes from Paul to Benedict have settled the war - but not the battles.
* I do not for a moment think the battles to interpret Vatican Two and The Liturgical Reform will cease simply because the war is over. I just wonder why one so seldom reads the words of the Popes in their official acts cited by those professing to be traditionalists. Back in the day, citing official acts of the Pope was considered irrefragable proof in any argument. Now, his official acts,for many traditionalists, appear to have been dethroned and reduced to the same level as the personal opinions of lay men writing for lay publications. Maybe it is some traditionalists who have been the victims of a democratised revolution rather than The Living Magisterium.
* I do want to post a response to the idea it was liturgical revolutionaries who comprised Concilium which prepared the revised Missal.
* I will do so in the next post
>I just wonder why one so seldom reads the words of the Popes in their official acts cited by those professing to be traditionalists.
See Barthe's "Beyond Vatican II' if you have any real desire to understand the apparent contradiction versus desire to bludgeon those nasty RadTrads.
Honestly, borncatholic, by both your moniker and your tone, you seem rarin' to pick a fight. No matter how much you may have been smacked around by RadTrads, could you not manage to show them the slightest grace? Benedict XVI certainly does. Reading his exhortation as the kiss of death for the SSPX is a comical foray into the triumphalism you say you detest in others.
Consilium was headed by Cardinal Lercaro and included 30 Bishops on the Commission,among others.
As far as I understand it,Pope Paul gave the Synod of Bishops a copy of the Commission's work and they suggested changes and these changes were accepted by the Pope and the reformed Missal was promulgated in 1969.
I can't see how that is a revolutionary act. In fact having Bishops on the Commission, and having Bishops review the work of that Commission,and then having the Pope accept the suggested changes and then having the Bishops accept the Revised Missal before it was promulgated is the antithesis of a revolutionary act.
If there were heretics or revolutionaries who controlled the work and were responsible for a liturgical revolution, that is news to me, and, that is also contrary to the statements published in official acts of the Living Magisterium.
As to what this or any Pope decides about The Liturgy, that is fine with me. They were chosen by God, not me, to run this Divinely-Constituted Church.
Now, I'll engage in what for me is a revolutionary act..
I won't post anything for awhile.
Honestly, borncatholic, by both your moniker and your tone, you seem rarin' to pick a fight.
* Well, boranacatholic does not mean borntofight but I am quick to defend the Liivng Magisterium when I think it is being attacked.
No matter how much you may have been smacked around by RadTrads, could you not manage to show them the slightest grace?
* Oh, they haven't buffeted me at all. I was just referencing their attempts. They have never said a word to me that wounded me, nor can they ever do so. I know who I am. I do know they roar when they attack then mewl when they are confronted.
Benedict XVI certainly does.
*He is unflaggingly kind and patient. He is a much better Christian than me. If only the rad trads and the sspx were one-half as kind to him.
Reading his exhortation as the kiss of death for the SSPX is a comical foray into the triumphalism you say you detest in others.
* That wasn't triumphalism. That was reality. If you don't think the rad trad crowd will repudiate this P.S.A.E. you know a different crowd of rad trads than do I. Just wait until you read the response to this P.S.A.E. in The Remnant, Seattle Catholic, Fatima Crusader, Angelus, Catholic Family News, etc.
*Now, back to not posting.
I think most can agree that Vatican II was for the most only a number of statements as to what the church believed. But instead, there was a radical element that twisted things and used the Council to change things at their whim in such a quick and extremly radical way----without the slightest concern for the average Cahtolic. Most of what happened was never to have happened. And much of what was supposed to happen, never did. Scripture tells us we can discern if something is of the Holy spirit by its fruit--if the fruits are good or if they are rotten. What are the fruits that have come into the church since the late 60s and 70s? I have seen a church where many in the congregation no longer view the mass as a sacrifice--rather a meal. Many in the congregation, due to standing and receiving on the hand, which is allowed, see God as their buddy. Many no longer understand or even believe in the true presence. The line between the priesthood and the laity is even more blurred. Many see the mass as a celebration thats between them and the priest--everyone is looking at each other. And we have a church where there are an unprecedented number of priests and Bishops who openly disregard and openly disobey Papal authority and directives without fear of being disciplined. These men will be judged for leading many astray by false or twisted teachings. Our Lord promised that he would be with us even until the end of time. If things don't turn around, the church I believe, will still be here, but it will be a smaller, leaner, more devout church--and a church that no doubt will be persecuted. If one hasn't noticed, those who stand up for truth and their Christian faith, are increasingly being persecuted for their faith. We are even beginning to see it in our own country. God bless you all.
"Waiting 17 months for a document from the man who wrote books such as "The Spirit of the Liturgy" and prefaces to books by U.M. Lang and Msgr. Gamber I expected something forceful to kick start the reform of the reform."
I hear you. We need to face facts; Pope Benedict is not Cardinal Ratzinger.
And when it came to praxis, Cardinal Ratzinger was not a 'Cardinal Ratzinger super enforcer' either. What I mean is that he wrote books, great books, but he was not a man of action in relation to actual liturgical reform, at least not obviously or officially. There is nothing concrete, only theoretical (which I do not wish to underrate). A thinker, not a doer. He may have done things behind the scenes, like keep Father Joseph Fessio SJ and Mother Angelica from being burned.
I do not consider this 'Apostolic Exhortation' even as a phase one of any so-called reform of the reform.
When Shawn Tribe (whom I respect) asks readers at his New Liturgical Movement blog to "withhold [...] judgement and negative reaction", because "50 years down the road, this may be seen as a crucial and brilliant chess move that worked in a pastoral way to help get a very difficult task on the road to being accomplished", my eyes glaze over, and I feel icy cold. He suggests, “that to understand this document properly, we must think of […] what may come in the motu proprio”. Fair enough.
I respect Pertinacious Papist for not going down this road on his blog, though as a parent he would have that right. He is also correct, given the non-commanding pastoral style of the document (which is full of suggestions), to "wonder whether such understatement and repeated qualification could not strike a note of indecisiveness and play into the hands of those who have no intention of submitting to a "reform of the reform.""
It did not work for Pope Paul VI.
I suppose I am an individualist and existentialist after all.
All due respect for future Catholics, but I do not have 50 or 100 bloody years left. I am fertilizer for a future forest. But realistically, what could I hope for in terms of authentic liturgical reform in my lifetime?
==
I should add that I do not consider his support for the FSSP as part of any reform of the reform, or reform of the liturgy.
We fertilizer for a future forest. Plant an oak. Our age is expendable.
I wish I could believe that. I rebel against such a fate.
==
his support for the FSSP
Ratzinger's support that is....
==
I am a person, not fertilizer for a future forest.
"The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored."
Groan. Whatever.
==
Now, back to my despair.
==
"Pope Benedict writes the Reform is orderly development which has been guided by The Holy Spirit. I do not understand how that can be understood to be true if, in fact, what we Christians have witnessed was a revolution."
I'm sorry, but that is not what he says. If you want to get nitpicky, what he says is that the ritual forms in the bimillenary history of God's Church are guided by the Holy Spirit, by which he specifies, in the next sentence (of #3) the liturgical development up through the renewal "called for by the Second Vatican Council."
Benedict is writing an Apostolic Exhortation. Of course he is going to be politic. But if you've read Benedict/Ratzinger and know what he's said at the Fontgombault conference and by way of greeting to various other liturgical conferences elsewhere, as well as in his own works and published prefaces to various liturgical studies, you know that he does not personally concur with the mainstream sentiment that what we have now is, by any stretch of the imagination, an organic development of what existed before the Council.
"I go by official acts of the Living Magisterium and it is clear to me the Popes from Paul to Benedict have settled the war - but not the battles."
I might agree if I knew what you meant.
"I just wonder why one so seldom reads the words of the Popes in their official acts cited by those professing to be traditionalists."
Again, I'm not sure how helpful such labels are. Sedevacantists, I suppose might be classified as traditionalists. You have also styled yourself (over the objections of some other commentators) a traditionalist. Between those shores lies a vast amorphous sea.
One could ask, too, I suppose, why we don't see many defenders of mainstream Catholicism these days citing the words of Pius XII's Mediator Dei. Your question is not a bad one.
Susan,
You raise the preeminent concern that touches where the rubber meets the road. Even if Bornacatholic were right about this Apostolic Exhortation settling the liturgical question (or at least the "war," as he put it), none of this settles the agony of the faithful Catholics who have suffered through nearly four decades of liturgical experimentation and institutionalized abuses. I don't think Bornacatholic would really disagree with this. Still, this is the heart of the problem for the vast majority of us: as Mosebach put it, we go to Church to find Jesus and come away theatre critics. That which should be the source and summit of our lives has become, for many, a cross they can barely bring themselves to endure. What I pray for is a liturgy that would bring honor to Christ, consolation to the faithful, and edification to all. In how many places do we have that now, speaking objectively and honestly?
Consilium was headed by Cardinal Lercaro and included 30 Bishops on the Commission, among others.... I can't see how that is a revolutionary act.
If you can't see what was revolutionary about Bugnini's work, for starters, I would want to ask what works you have studied on the question, since you've said you have thoroughly researched these questions. I would want to how you would explain why a top drawer liturgist like Louis Bouyer, who was an enthusiastic participant in Vatican II and supporter of its proposed liturgical reforms dropped out of the picture, utterly disillusioned, by 1968. I would want to know what about the content of Klaus Gamber's Reform of the Roman Liturgy you think led Cardinal Ratzinger to describe Gamber as one of the few non-nonsense liturgists who represented the "center" of the Church's thinking on liturgy and to endorse his thesis in his introduction to the French edition.
Bornacatholic, you amaze me. I do not worry too much about what the RadTrads or SSPX think of the document, you are partly right, they will not see much in it for them (why would they!); but I care a lot about what the Bishops and my liberal masters and fellow catholics think. Not only what they think, what they plan to do. Even noncompliance is an action.
For example, Pope Benedict XVI is asking for more Gregorian Chant.... déjà vu ...Paul VI was wanting the Bishops to do the same thing back in 1974. Yes, 1974. Nothing new.
http://www.adoremus.org/
Voluntat...iObsequens.html
I have never been to a Church sanctioned Latin liturgy, new or old. Not counting TV, I could count the amount of Gregorian Chant I have heard in the offical Church mass on two hands. No, probably one. Latin is long gone and dead here in my region, and for TV midnight Mass viewers only. I watch it when I can. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Benedict would ask for this, Latin. There are greater concerns for me, maybe more do-able. Getting the Tabernacle back on the Altar for instance, ad orientem, etc.
==
There is a ridiculous side to this Exhortation; beginning with praise for the liturgical reforms that followed the council, it then goes on with a list of abuses as long as your arm - and this is the same list of abuses that have been reprobated for years, and years, and years. Why, one asks, are these abuses never actually punished - when it is foreseeable that the failure to punish them will mean that they continue? and when the policy of 'collegially' reprimanding people who commit them, but never actually imposing any bad consequences for doing them, has been known to be a failure for more than 30 years? I used to put this down to a mysterious failure of will, but that doesn't really stand up. I think the only explanation is a (sometimes unconscious) realisation that current liturgical abuses are not terrible departures from the postconciliar liturgical changes, but an implementation of their intent. Their intent was specifically to expunge certain features of the Catholic faith; cf. the work of Lauren Pristas. In turn, this was an implementation of the will of the majority at the Council, who wanted to do the same thing, and managed to leave the conciliar documents deliberately vague in order to promote this purpose. (This is an established historical fact, of course; the periti and the Dutch and French bishops involved in leadership of the majority at the council mostly openly abandoned the faith after it.) So a real suppression of even the worst liturgical abuses cannot be undertaken, because that would by its logic lead on to undermining the new liturgy itself, and the whole conciliar project of 'renewal'. People like the current Pope, who did not abandon the faith, nevetheless cooperated with its underminers in the conciliar days; so they cannot undertake such an attack, because that would mean facing up to their past crimes. I am a new convert to the trad cause, largely as a result of getting a closer look at the way clerical life works; I cannot for the life of me see any explanation of the current state of the Church and its leadership, aside from this one.
For Benedict XVI to ask for Latin in the Mass is nothing new; it is almost absurd to state it again. It was said before in Vatican II, and after. Why would it happen now? I am not anti-Latin, just pro-realism.
Is there anything in this document really new, that has not been said before?
Is there anything that would stop liturgical dance? Or get the priest on the correct side of the Altar again? Or get rid of Blessed Sacrament chapels (at least the ones I know), and get back to using the churches again; giving the churches back to Christ? Why can't I read just once a recommendation that the tabernacle be on the altar, - that the Sacrament of the Holy Sacrifice belongs with the altar, that this is a most appropriate place. Why separate the real Presence of our Lord from the holy altar?
It even speaks of more changes/innovations/additions or whatever to the liturgy, see 51 "The People of God might be helped to understand more clearly this essential dimension of the Church's life, taking the dismissal as a starting- point. In this context, it might also be helpful to provide new texts, duly approved, for the prayer over the people and the final blessing, in order to make this connection clear"
Now that could be a real invitation to the prog liturgists, etc.
==
"People like the current Pope, who did not abandon the faith, nevetheless cooperated with its underminers in the conciliar days; so they cannot undertake such an attack, because that would mean facing up to their past crimes."
I wish it were not so, but I fear you might be right.
I am not sure we should expect much from poor Benedict.
There is denial in the family.
No Pope has taken on Cardinal Mahony and his ilk, only a crippled old nun. Just an example.
==
"I think the only explanation is a (sometimes unconscious) realisation that current liturgical abuses are not terrible departures from the postconciliar liturgical changes, but an implementation of their intent. Their intent was specifically to expunge certain features of the Catholic faith"
There is maybe a grain of truth in what you wrote (but it would be hard if not impossible to know every person's intents at the Council, their individual intents!), but in my opinion if I really believed this deeply, that the whole lot had heretical intentions, and could know this for certain, then I might conclude it was pretty much the end of the line for Catholic church. What is trustworthy when the Church can't be trusted? Will such thinking encourage sectarianism? Where was the Christ when the gates of hell prevailed in part? Where was the Pope? It is more than just simple corruption and stupidity, wrongheaded pastoralism and errors we are talking about, right?
==
What I am trying to ask is what are the certain features of the Catholic faith that everyone was specifically aiming to expunge? Are these directly part of the Deposit of the Faith? If so, then we are in bigger trouble than we can ever imagine, IMHO.
==
On 3/9 bornacatholic offered a schlocky soliloquy in which he grandly declared to Dr Blosser that he would leave forever this viper's nest of rad-trads and proudly carry his valiant defense of the Church to other pastures. On 3/12, he was back again. The last couple days he has been grandiloquently posing before the mirror again as Archangel Michael against the rad-trad devils, and now he says he will cease his endeavors for "awhile".
C'mon, everyone. It's clear what this charlatan is up to. He jumps into a situation, stirs up the natives, and then sits bACk and gets off on his own ability to cause consternation. The more you respond to his comically inflated view of himself, the more you become occasions of his solitary psychological priapisms.
Brian Mershon had him nailed from the start. I suggest you ignore this poor soul and his falstaffian buffoonery.
you know that he does not personally concur with the mainstream sentiment that what we have now is, by any stretch of the imagination, an organic development of what existed before the Council.
*But, I posted his own words from Feast of Faith where he writes it was an organic development...
In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church's earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer.
* Now,I can cite other similar sources, as I recall. I will try and chase them down.
* I've read Davies,Gamber,Ratzinger, Gueranger, Taft,Amero, Jungmann, etc in my own attempt to figure this all out.
*Jungmann has documented changes which did not arise organically. That is an ineluctable reality.
* I make no claim to any special education, expertise, or any such thing. All I am is an average Christian trying to find out as much as I can about The Church and the Liturgy I love. And I insist I am as deserving of the label "traditionalist" as anyone else because I obey H.M. Church and it is she who decides what is and isn't Tradition and Liturgical tradition. I just don't, any longer, annoint myself with some special qualifying label.
* Following Tradition, and the admonition by the previous Pope Benedict, I call myself a Christian Catholic. Period.
*Now, I was born during Pope Pius XII's Papacy and it is my opinion I have lived during a time of great Popes. And I can not think of a Pope who has officially written or publicly stated the Liturgical Reform was a revolution.
*So, I think I have Tradition on my side when I claim what I claim. The only other alternative I can see is for me to take the position Holy Mother Church is officially lying and has been officially lying for more than two score years and that the only source of truth is to be found in the claims made by critics of Holy Mother Church.
* I don't see how that is a reasonable ground for any trad to pitch his tent upon.
* I don't think all of the intellectual foment; all the storm and impulse; all of the accusations and criticisms; all of the critiques and corrections, etc is in any way new. I suspect the same sort of thing occured in the past when The Canon was totally recast or when the Greek Mass was changed into the vernacular Latin. We just weren't around to hear or read about it.
* I suspect that many fractious factions will now throw Pope Benedict under the Popemobile because of this P.A.S.E.
*We do know that very early in his Pontificate, Pope Benedict addressed all of the querulous unease about the Second Vatican Council by citing unease, foment, and catastrophe trailing in the wake of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea...
The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church's situation after the Council of Nicea: he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: "The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith.
* There is nothing new under the sun, and, that includes living in fear, panic, and the idea we live in an especially dangerous time - "This is the worst crisis the church has ever faced" - and that we are doomed and all is lost.
*Be not afraid.
* There is not a traditionalist, not a schismatic, not a sedevacantist, not a liberal, not a conservative, not a single Christian Catholic of any kind who, more than me, desires a Liturgy which is as solemn, reverent, and beautiful as is humanly possible.
* I am not minimising the problems we face. I am trying to write it is nothing we have not faced before and I am trying to write we can trust the Church Jesus established, The Pillar and Ground of Truth, to tell us the truth in her official documents.
*If one can't trust Holy Mother Church, one has become a protestant.
"There is nothing new under the sun ..."
I agree, Bornacatholic; and after consideration, I believe this includes everything you've stated here. I'm not being flip. (1) The Church is infallible, (2) the new liturgy is both licit and valid, when celebrated as prescribed, (3) some positive reforms can be noted in the attempted liturgical reforms, such as the expanded biblical readings, and (4) there are grave problems in the Church, not merely of liturgical abuse, but of defective catechesis, a hemorrhaging of membership bordering a
a great apostasy (in one meaning of the term I discuss in my post, "Apostasy" (Dec. 16, 2006).
I don't think there is disagreement over these points. If there is any disagreement, I think it comes down to possible disagreements over (a) what this or that pope said, (b) or meant, (c) what relationship the Mass of 1969 promulgated by Paul VI bears to the reforms mandated by Vatican II and, e.g., the Mass of 1965 for which the Vatican had new missals printed.
You quote the former Ratzinger's words to the effect that "a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal" as that of tradition. Do you assume by "a new addition" he means a replica with no changes made? If he meant that, I don't see how it would be possible to reconcile his statement with other statements where he clearly states, for example, that what came after the Council was not organic development but a "fabricated liturgy." In his Preface to the French edition of Gamber's magisterial study, for instance, Ratzinger writes: "We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it -- as in a manufacturing process -- with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."
More anon.
How do we then account for the following statement of the Holy Father in his Apostolic Exhortation?
"The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities."
What the Holy Father is doing here is echoing what is now a received tradition of bons mots that has its source in the late Pope John Paul II judgment about a matter of fact: the status quo in the Church following Vatican II. As is often the case with John Paul, his description of facts -- especially regarding the status quo -- verges toward wishful thinking:
In his Final Report of the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (7 December 1985), John Paul II stated:
"The liturgical renewal is the most visible fruit of the whole conciliar effort. Even if there have been some difficulties, it has generally been received joyfully and fruitfully by the faithful. ... The active participation so happily increased after the Council does not consist only in external activity, but above all in interior and spiritual participation, in living and fruitful participation in the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ." (II, B, b, 1, emphasis added)
If this were true, our Perpetual Adoration chapels would be packed, our Confessional lines would be long, our seminaries would be full, and our liturgies would be an expression of reverence and source of joy and consolation to all. As it is, this ebullient statement is lodged within larger passages acknowledging certain 'difficulties' in the implementation of the Vatican II reforms. Indeed.
Nevertheless, these same bons mots are again repeated by John Paul II in his Vicesimus Quintus Annus (1988 ) on 25th anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium, where he states that the
"... vast majority of the pastors and the Christian people have accepted the liturgical reform in a spirit of obedience and indeed joyful fervour. For this we should give thanks to God for that movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church which the liturgical renewal represents ...
"... for the increased participation of the faithful by prayer and song, gesture and silence, in the Eucharist and the other sacraments; for the ministries exercised by lay people and the responsibilities that they have assumed in virtue of the common priesthood into which they have been initiated through Baptism and Confirmation; for the radiant vitality of so many Christian communities, a vitality drawn from the wellspring of the Liturgy.
"These are all reasons for holding fast to the teaching of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and to the reforms which it has made possible: 'the liturgical renewal is the most visible fruit of the whole work of the Council'." (12)
Increased participation of the faithful by prayer? By silence? In the Eucharist and the other sacraments -- like Confession? In the ministries exercised by lay people as in the EIGHT Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion we ORDINARILY have at every Sunday Mass in explicit violation of Redemptionis Sacramentum #158 and Benedict XVI's stipulation in Sacramentum Caritatis #50 or "in cases of genuine need"?
None of this is to deny genuine movement of the Holy Ghost in vital Catholic communities of renewal over the last decades. They do exist. I have witnessed them. But they exist generally outside the mainstream are not the experience of most suburban Catholic parishes throughout the parts of the world I have visited in the United States, Asia, and Europe.
This is not a denial of any point of doctrine or any point of discipline, but merely a disagreement over an interpretation of a matter of fact.
Dear Papist, Thanks for the kind agreeable words.
You quote the former Ratzinger's words to the effect that "a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal" as that of tradition. Do you assume by "a new addition" he means a replica with no changes made? If he meant that, I don't see how it would be possible to reconcile his statement with other statements where he clearly states, for example, that what came after the Council was not organic development but a "fabricated liturgy." In his Preface to the French edition of Gamber's magisterial study, for instance, Ratzinger writes: "We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it -- as in a manufacturing process -- with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."
*As to the bolded words, I understand him to be writing the development was organic and within Tradition. I do so becuase what he has written officially confirms, for me, that idea.
*And I recall the official written words of Pope Paul the reform was not artificial or the act of a dilettante. And I recall the words of Johannes Paulus Magnus in a similar vein.
*As to your understanding of the situation, I well understand why you think as you do. The very words of Cardinal Ratzinger himself.
* As to why he has spoken and written seemingly contradictory things in different venues I leave that too men much smarter than me.
*Doctor, I am not sucking-up when I write I am aware intellectuals think differently than do I. I am sure you could go back over your own writings and discover seemingly contradictory statements that can be reconciled or subsumed under some greater rubric (pun intended).
* I do know Pope Benedict is a genius and I know geniuses, especially theological ones, can be really difficult to understand so I take from them what I can understand and assume what I can not understand is way beyond me but orthodox.
*If they are not orthodox, I wait for some orthodox genius to correct their errors.
The confusion surrounding the introduction of the so-called "Novus Ordo is certainly understandable.
In an offical letter written on behalf of Paul VI and addressed to the Abbot of Beuron, who had sent to the Pope a copy of the new edition of the Missal, then Cardinal Secretary of State Cicognani stated, "The singular characteristic and primary importance of this new edition is that it reflects completely the intent of the Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy." (Klaus Gamber, Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 33)
Yet, whereas Sacrosanctum Concilium repeatedly and unambiguously refers to the Mass as a sacrificium eucharisticum, the Institutio generalis Missalis text for the Novus Ordo appears to deliberately avoids using the word sacrifice, except in passing.
In the first edition of the Novus Ordo, the Mass was designated as "the Lord's Supper or the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord" -- a designation, which, according to Klaus Gamber, has its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite of a commemorative meal. Gamber writes:
"The fact that this particular definition of the Mass appears in a document bearing the signature of Pope Paul VI, and that it became necessary later to correct it [to include reference to the "Eucharistic Sacrifice"], is a painfully obvious indication of how confused things are in our Church today." (Klaus Gamber, Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 67f.)
Can we expect all the confusion of this sort to be cleared up by a few strokes of a pen? I think not. Neither do I think the Holy Father expects this. He understands the situation far better than most imagine. What he can and will do about it, however, is anyone's guess and prayer.
This is not a denial of any point of doctrine or any point of discipline, but merely a disagreement over an interpretation of a matter of fact.
* Agreed. It was not my intent to indicate I thought you unorthodox or anything of the sort. If I thought that, I wouldn't be reading and enjoying all of your work
* I know that when I moved out of Maine, I knew I was leaving a dead Diocese - it reminded me of Laodecia in The Apocalypse.
*And when I moved to Florida, I thought I had moved to a dead and buried Diocese (Palm Beach County).
*And then I visited my in-laws north of Atlanta and I went to midnight Mass at St. Brigid's. It is what would prolly be called a N.O. Church. The beautiful new Church was filled with young couples with plenty of children, an excellent choir sang beautiful hymns, and the Liturgy was solemn and reverent. They had their own school. The Church Architecture embodied what I learned was crucial to Christian Worship - verticality, iconography and permanence
* I think that not only Johannes Paulus Magnus but Pope Benedict too has spoken of the new springtime in the Church. When they do that, I assume they are speaking of the Daffodil of St. Brigid's while ignoring the diseased elm of The Diocese which is Maine and also ignoring the skunkcabbage which is the Diocese of Palm Beach.
* There is an axiom that the answer to many problems is in the funeral rite. And it is an axiom that it takes a ton of force to stop the momentum of a Universal Barque.
* So, it may be the case upcoming funerals will supply the right answers to our Liturgical problems and it may just turn out that Vatican Two was the right reorienting wind.
*In any event, I really appreciated the link to the Apostasy post.I thought that was great.
For the record: With due respect, unless it is an official designation and title we must use, it bothers me personally to see this Johannes Paulus *Magnus, i.e. the Great* stuff.
==
For the record: With due respect, unless it is an official designation and title we must use, it bothers me personally to see this Johannes Paulus *Magnus, i.e. the Great* stuff.
*Brother, Paul. Pope Benedict has publicly called Pope john Paul II "Great" at least two times publicly.
*As far as I know, a Pope becomes known as "great" by popular acclimation
"* So, it may be the case upcoming funerals will supply the right answers to our Liturgical problems and it may just turn out that Vatican Two was the right reorienting wind."
You are an optimist. Once the older ones go, we get the next generation, and that is not pretty from where I am looking.
==
*The numbers of both Catholics and Priests is increasing. The turn around in The Priesthood occurred during the Pontificate of Johannes Paulus Magnus. That turnaround has been credited to, among other things, his example and World Youth Days etc.
http://www.jknirp.com/numcat.htm
*As my friend reminds me, one day some of these Orthodox Priests will become Bishops and a future Pope.
* I have also read, I forget where now, that the quality and orthodoxy of the Priests is also improving.
*It is just when we become convinced Winter will never end that Springtime suddenly erupts and the recent turnaround can be seen as abrupt if one takes the long-term view.
*And, Brother Paul, your Longanimity is the coin of purchase in the economy of Divine Love.
* There is nothing more radical than willingly suffering for others and there is nothing more human than writing and speaking to one another about one's suffering. So, we Christians can be radically human and maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Authority even as we work within our area of competence and authority to do what we can to hasten the Springtime in our own Dioceses.
*What if one day you learn you were chosen by God as one whose suffering would be the good He chose to bring out of the evil of queer clergy, poor catechesis,goofball liturgies, and that your suffering purchased orthodoxy and return to the good, the true, and the beautiful to our Worship?
*As St. Bob Dylan sang, "Behind every beautiful face, there's been some kind of pain.."
Paul : I am surprised what is the reason that you are so bothered by rather innocent human desire to associate with greatness:
"For the record: With due respect, unless it is an official designation and title we must use, it bothers me personally to see this Johannes Paulus *Magnus, i.e. the Great* stuff."
I am also quite stunned to see you so desperate about the issue of this post. You make it all sound like the most terrible thing has been inflicted upon the church.
You do not like Cardinal Mahoney - get over it - I do not like Bishop Burke.
Don't you think that we all deserve a bit of generosity.
My goodness all this moaning and complaining about once own religion -
Can you see anything positive?
In my view Vatican II reflected very much the time and type parishioners our church had/has to work with.
This are on average all very good people - perhaps they are more liberal than you, perhaps they are more 'modern' - so what.
Look no further than this Blog - the holier than holy managed to alienate fine folks in the mold of an Ephrem/ Janice/Bornacatholic.
If you ask me it is quite telling that the radical orthodox have a hard time getting along with their fellow believers.
IMHO often they can not even get over minor disagreements among themselves.
I certainly find the often uncharitable and merciless way one tends to deal with other opinions around the rad/trads cottage industry of self-perpetuating blogs telling and yes rather unattractive.
"Can you see anything positive?"
No.
"My goodness all this moaning and complaining about once own religion -"
Yes grega, I am the anti-christ. And I hate Care Bears.
"*If one can't trust Holy Mother Church, one has become a protestant."
And a protestant.
==
Heard Mass in French twice this week. The music -- horrible.
The language -- BEAUTIFUL!
There is a "liturgical translation" of Scripture that allows it to be PROCLAIMED -- magnificent!
The prayers such as the postcommunion are also very elegant and meaningful unlike their English counterparts.
The main problem with the liturgy in English is that it is the product of committees with no feeling for language.
"I am also quite stunned to see you so desperate about the issue of this post. You make it all sound like the most terrible thing has been inflicted upon the church."
No, not the worst thing. It is fine for what it is. I think the problem is that people like me had such raised expectations about Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and hoped for something beyond what we already heard from Paul VI and John Paul II. We know he is capable of more.
Back in the 80s when I encountered the Ratzinger Report, I thought 'this guy understands'. Things I read thereafter confirmed that first impression. It is strange to see him now as Pope missing the incredible opportunity, in a key document on the Eucharist, to make one tiny little positive gesture or suggestion towards "versus Deum", "ad orientem", or the "ad altare" position, as constituting a noble and positive liturgical posture for the priest celebrating at Mass. He knows, yet does nothing! In a document full of suggestions, he did not even *suggest* it - that they may turn to, and 'face the Lord' as they did until recently. And we wonder why we have a crisis in the Church.
==
We deserve it.
==
I just hope this is not poor Benedict's swan song.
==
" ... he did not even *suggest* it - that they may turn to, and 'face the Lord'..."
Paul, my friend, I understand what you mean here. My thought is that the Holy Father perhaps is constrained in one way or another by the medium and the function of an Apostolic Exhortation after the Eucharistic Synod of 2005. You will recall that traditional concerns were pretty much sidelined by the Synod itself, if you recall some of the notable statements as that made by Cardinal Arinze. It may be that Benedict understands his function as a providing a retrospective summation of the Synod, rather than introducing new suggestions that were no part of the synodal discussion. If there is any grain of truth in this, it may be that we are to wait for something more to come later in the Motu proprio and thereafter. -- Back to the Lenten observance ...
Paul:
IMHO in the long run the church will be influenced more by folks like yourself than by progressives and liberals like me. Cheer up.
Trouble is that you guys have IMHO not the resources nor the right attitude to make this work on a big scale.
But I forgot - like true elites you really do not want to make this work for everybody anyhow- as long as it fits your own fancy it is all right.
Small and beautiful - those that disagree have to leave - right?
19 century solutions for the 21 th century - yes this will work just great.
Good luck.
Again if you ask me, you can not even get along amoung each other in this limited space - one needs a 'specialty church' catering to ones own very particualar tastes to make this all fly.
Certainly the way one flaunts obedience while disrespecting Popes and Cardinals is telling.
It is neat how the internet tickles this out so readily.
"It is neat how the internet tickles this out so readily."
No, I would say the same things face to face, do not doubt it.
Never met a Pope or a Cardinal.
I have gotten the boot from a few priests in my time, sad to say.
I thought I was more polite and civilized on the internet.
==
"It may be that Benedict understands his function as a providing a retrospective summation of the Synod, rather than introducing new suggestions that were no part of the synodal discussion. [...] it may be that we are to wait for something more to come later in the Motu proprio and thereafter."
Good point. Thanks!
==
On the nature of Vatican II, and the indefectibility of the Church; it did not contain any infallible definitions, so nothing it says can be seen as the Church's officially teaching heresy. Nonetheless as an ecumenical council it was guided by the Holy Spirit, so you can't dismiss all its documents as just wrong. You need to distinguish between the object of the work of the council, which was the production of its documents, and the intention of the majority at the council, which was the subversion of the Catholic faith. It is the object that is protected by the Holy spirit; and we can see that this was effective, because most of the statements in those documents can be understood in a Catholic sense. That's all the Holy Spirit guarantees to do at a council; production of greater fruits than that depends on the response of the fathers at the council to grace, which was lacking at Vatican II. the intention of the majority wasa horrible sin, which had its effect onthe documents in the form of deliberate ambiguities that make it possible or even natural to understand them in a non-Catholic sense. The consequences of this sin have been working themselves out in the church ever since. As for people who say there has been a lot of progress since the council; I'm not thate there is a point in traditionalist arguing with them, since there is no disagreement onwhat constitutes progress - such people usually think that self-centred and irreverent liturgies, abandonment of the intellectual heritage of Catholicism, especially its philosophical heritage, and tacit toleration of sin, especially sexual sin, is progress.
sorry - "I'm not sure that there is a point in arguing with them, since there is no agreement on what consitutes progress'
"You do not like Cardinal Mahoney - get over it"
I man is known by his words and actions. The Cathedral is one. visit it. If you don't groan, you're a martian.
People complain that we didn't get thunder and lightning; it's just 'more of the same.'
Well, it's an EXHORTATION, for heaven's sake, not a piece of disciplinary legislation. The Pope is EXHORTING!
And as for, 'we've heard it all before; time for action', well, I think that repeating the truth, in season and out, DOES have an effect. The Church is turning around. It takes decades, but it works.
I agree, Dr. Blosser, that laws must be enforced.
But when you have a situation in which most Catholics have simply lost any sense of what Catholicism IS, "enforcing laws" as your primary approach to the problem is just nonsense. No one will obey them.
People have to rediscover what it means to be Catholic first and that means internal re-evangelization. That takes time...a lot of time. But it works.
The Church is recovering Her self-confidence, good priests are flocking into the seminaries and dioceses, laypeople are organizing ways to help each other when bishops and priest won't, the Holy Spirit is burning away in the Church.
BISHOPS need to start enforcing the law before the Pope can and in order to do that, they have to re-evangelize their own dioceses. Bishop Carlson of Saginaw, a marvellous man, is doing very little "enforcement." But he is patiently recruiting an whole new generation of priests for his dioceses and working humbly and patiently to turn things around. And over decades, things in Saginaw WILL turn around. But not overnight.
If he took a "law enforcment" approach, it might seem satsifying, but droves of priests and layfolk would leave and he would be left with scorched earth, rather than a flock of people who have suffered decades of poor leadership, but whose souls deserve saving.
No, law enforcement works in the context of general good order. Not in the midst of mass apostasy. John Paul II was right and Benedict is following him--as anyone with sense knew from the outset he would--because Benedict knows he was right.
And it's working.
Jeff, you are right that it does take time. But on the other hand many souls are being lost. Those in authority have just that--authority, but they refuse to use that authority. Its simple. They need to say to their flock, this is what we believe, this is what is required of you and we know you are only human and there are avenues for you in order to cope and live out your Christian life, but if you reject those values and choose to act not in accord with those teachings, you must confess and get right with God, or take the consequences which is to stay away from full communion with the church. The things which we need to concentrate on again is in the teaching our young and the reeducating of all Catholics. We need to be sure of oversight in that what is being taught is truly Catholic doctrine through and through. So many teachers of our young are teaching false doctrines based on their own personal or poltical agenda. I pray daily for the reform of the reform in todays church, but I fervently pray for a papal motu proprio so that no matter what, we will have a gauge in place--the classic traditionl mass of the ages. God bless, SW
Pernacist Papist, you asked me where that church might be? Certainly not in the Dioceses in North Dakota. One needs to go to the Diocese of St. Cloud or St. Paul, MN. I was even told by a priest that even the Desire to want to attend a Tridentine mass was just temptation from the devil and that I was being disobedient towards my bishop, who has not allowed the old mass, if I went to the old mass in another diocese.
UVA Launches Priest Training Workshops: Joint Effort with FSSP to Train Priests to Celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass
http://www.emediawire.com/releas...3/
emw511280.htm
St. Louis, MO (PRWeb) March 14, 2007
==
"I was even told by a priest that even the Desire to want to attend a Tridentine mass was just temptation from the devil and that I was being disobedient towards my bishop, who has not allowed the old mass, if I went to the old mass in another diocese."
Well, at least the priest appears to believe in the devil. That is better than liberal I suppose.
==
“Sacramentum Caritatis”: Everyone to Mass on Sunday
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblic...id=126741&
eng=y
by Sandro Magister
==
Jeff wrote:
"People complain that we didn't get thunder and lightning; it's just 'more of the same.'
Well, it's an EXHORTATION, for heaven's sake, not a piece of disciplinary legislation. The Pope is EXHORTING!
And as for, 'we've heard it all before; time for action', well, I think that repeating the truth, in season and out, DOES have an effect. The Church is turning around. It takes decades, but it works."
I have been thinking about what you wrote.
And about what Pertinacious Papist wrote earlier.
I was too harsh. The document is fine, as I said. There were things I would have liked to see, no, expected to see. But you are right, it is "an EXHORTATION" after all. I had unreal expectations. Pope Benedict XVI, in his wise and wonderful way, has gathered what has been said over a long period (to little or no effect), and what was said at the recent Synod, and has written a great document for the Church. If the bishops and priests (and liturgical committees) around the world would take it to heart, seriously, and implement it, it could potentially be a humble, but realistic and powerful step on the road to liturgical reform of the Pauline Mass and its celebration. Thanks!
==
How can wanting the Mass of the ages possibly be a mortal sin or a temptation from the devil. Imagine a junk food producer wishing you long life, healthy food, plenty of rest, proper liquid and a safe Son tan.
What an idiotic notion.
Commenting by HaloScan
