Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
I believe that the book was released in Italian: Piero Marini, Liturgia e Bellezza, Nobilis Pulchritudo:Memoria di una esperienza vissuta nelle celebrazioni liturgiche del Santo Padre (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2005). Although as I haven't seen the Liturgical Press edition yet I'm not 100% sure that its the same book.
We give thanks to God that Papal Liturgy has now been snatched from the clutches of Piero Marini. But I wonder how many other Consilium bureaucrats are still around in the Curia?
Reading this, I think we have to be even more grateful for the example of Benedict XVI, but not only for his liturgical vision and clear improvements of the Papal Liturgy.
We also have to be grateful to Benedict XVI for hsi obvious patience and willingness to deal in a calm, reasoned manner with men who clearly see things differently from him. And not just on matters peripheral, but on the very matter closest to the Holy Father's heart: the liturgy and its restoration. It's clear from this book that Marini has a vision of the liturgy and an interpretation of Vatican II completely at odds with Benedict XVI.
Benedict XVI certainly knew this. But what did he do? Did he throw him out the first day of his papacy? No. Did he publicly humiliate him? No. Rather, he acted in a prudent manner and let this man finish out his time in his office, no doubt having to endure many personal displeasures at how he saw the liturgy celebrated. But the Holy Father was patient, realizing that a sudden dismissal might provide more harm than good.
This is something I think we should all keep in mind whenever we start complaining and asking why doesn't the Holy Father simply put down the "iron boot" not only on things like this, but also on dissident bishops, etc. Things are never as simple as they seem.
Benecict XVI has a type of patience and calmness rarely seen. It would do well for us all to imitate it.
Catholic doctrine cannot change one iota. I pray that His Excellency, Mons. Marini, will repent from his errors instead of burning in hell.
I have not read the book, so perhaps others here have more information than I do, but what Catholic doctrine has Msgr. Marini denied?
I realize that the chief author of the 'Ottaviani Intervention' became schismatic and sedevacantist, but I still find that every one of the points made in that document hits the nail straight in the center of the head. As Mons. Marini virtually admits, the old rite is a threat to the Conciliar generation because they had created a new sacramental theology and then a rite to propagate it. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from error, but not equivocation.
Permit me to play a bit of devil's advocate here: if the hermeneutic of (liturgical) continuity is, indeed, the only way to interpret the letter and vision of Sacrosanctum Concilium, then how are we to explain the following:
1) The beginnings of liturgical discontinuity began to emerge in 1964, while Vatican II was still in session. A careful look at pictures and videos of the liturgy as celebrated at the Third (1964) and Fourth (1965) Sessions of Vatican II show that, even then, Paul VI (and Virgilio Noe?) had begun to implement a drastic and minimalist simplification of the liturgy that, in comparison, makes even the liturgy under John Paul II look ornate. For example, the altar at St. Peter's was stripped of its antependium and of all adornment save for 6 tiny candles with an equally tiny crucifix at dead center of the altar. And the vestments! Ugh. Paul VI celebrated the closing Mass of Vatican II in what must be one of the most minimalist papal chasubles ever made -- no decor at all, plain white save for a plain gold flap hanging down the middle. I haven't read anything yet that would suggest that any of the council fathers saw all this as a perversion of the liturgical vision of Vatican II -- indeed, from what I've read, this drastic simplification was made in 1964 precisely to "implement" what Vatican II itself had said the previous year!
2) Sometimes we speak of how "radical" the Novus Ordo is. What we often fail to remember is that, in 1966, a conference was held in Rome about how to implement the liturgical reform. It was a conference in which many of the Council fathers took part alongside many of the periti. The proceedings were published in a 2 - volume work called "Liturgy of Vatican II" (or something like that -- I read the book 4 years ago). If anything, the original reform proposals were even more radical (for example: abolish the Kyrie and the Gloria, start the Mass with the Collect, keep the altar completely bare outside the Mass, abolish the sign of the cross at the beginning of the Mass, etc.) and, had these been implemented, not only the Western rites but even the Eastern rites (which were attacked in that conference) would have been thoroughly leveled. All this -- barely a year after Vatican II, and with the connivance of many of the actual fathers of Vatican II.
3) Finally: if the hermeneutic of continuity is indeed the proper way of interpreting Vatican II's liturgical decrees, then why are we hearing about it only now? Why did the fathers of the council make little real effort to protest the liturgical changes 1965 - 1970 as a subversion of their will? While it is true that some of them expressed their private unease with the reforms, very few actually ventured to publicly criticize the reforms, or do anything significant to stop the destruction of the liturgy.
Don;t get me wrong. I am all for the hermeneutic of continuity. However, I think we need to recognize that the ambiguities and discontinuities that we have experienced in the liturgy these past 40 years are due slso to the ambiguities present in Vatican II itself. Frankly, if these discontinuities had absolutely no foundation in Vatican II, the phenomena I described above would have been plain impossible.
It seems to me that a complete return to liturgical sanity would entail, not just interpreting the letter of Vatican II in the most traditional manner, but also remedial action to address the ambiguities -- or, to use stronger language, the time bombs (Michael Davies), loopholes (Christopher Ferrara) and seeds of their own destruction (Aidan Nichols) -- that are embedded in its decrees and actions.
The main goal of all this was to make the Catholic mass as similar to Protestant (specifically Calvinist), as possible. I recently read where for some warped reason, Paul VI was fascinated by Calvinist liurgy, theology, and history. He thought (as did Bugnini et al), that the Catholic Mass should be stripped down to resemble Protestantism in order for them to see that now, there was no reason to object to the Roman Catholic Church, thereby making dialog, reproachment, and conversion (of Protestants back to Catholic) easier.
INstead, what he did was practically destroy Roman Catholicism.
John Paul II's liturgies were elaborate compared to Paul VI. Paul VI allowed for no ornamentation whatsoever. Which is another reason why he threw out the entire Papal court and everything that went with it.
Thank God we are returning to traditional Catholicism again. But I know it makes people like Archbishop Marini (the last dinosaurs of the Concillium crew), sick.
We did hear about the hermeneutic of continuity, from Dietrich von Hildebrand, from James Hitchcock, from Michael Davies from the start. The founders of Communio: Ratzinger, de Lubac, von Balthasar etc. made noises about it in the early 1970s already, indeed, before that. By 1985 Ratzinger was definite about it in the Ratzinger Report.
It was there all along, quite apart from the Lefebvrist alternative reading of "continuity." It just didn't get much press. But it was clear enough in the early to mid-1980s that I, teaching in a Mennonite seminary and moving steadily toward the Catholic Church, could readily pick it up, even from the pages of Commonweal and America--because I could read it out of the squealing coming from the progressives.
But the average Catholic and the average non-Catholic probably wasn't aware; both the Catholic and general press overwhelmingly gave the progressive side. Still, it was there for those with ears to hear, even for a rather sketchily informed proto-Catholic like myself. I saw enough hints of it such that when I read the Vatican II documents for the first time, continuity leapt from the pages.
I don't really blame Vatican II for the entire liturgical disaster the Catholic Church suffered. There are afew good things which came from it.
It was Paul VI, and the crew known as the "Concillium" , of which Archbishop Marini and Cardinal Virgilio Noe are the last living members who are responsible for fostering the liturgical wreckage of the Church. It is amazing how quickly these radical opinions spread even before the Council really ended, thru the entire Church!
A real disaster.
I don't blame JP II for really doing nothing to help correct the problem. I think He gave up in the beginning, and concentrated on other interests.
I thank God for Benedict XVI, and ins liturgical initiatives...especiallt Summorum Pontificum. Hopefull there will be many more rulings, and visual restorations at St. Peters along those lines in the near future.
I think Archbishop Marini's book was a desperate attempt of one of the last members of a dead-end experiment that failed in the Church. In a way I feel sorry for him, but considering the damange done to the Church which will take years to undo, it's hard to be totally sympathetic to soemone who still, even at almost the end clings to the same views.
Carlos,
It's late, so permit me to be brief.
I think the answer lay in your own comment to some degree.
There was what the Council Fathers decreed, which can be seen in Sacrosanctum Concilium and which is illuminated in writings like those in this book, Bugnini's own memoirs, or the research done by the like of Alcuin Reid with remaining living Council Fathers on the question of what was intended; then there was the subset of those who felt more was needed and pursued that.
That there was such a subset, however, does not define the Council itself, nor the proper hermeneutic -- which is ultimately not up for arbitrary determination.
it should be noted that the earliest known order of the mass of the roman rite shows that it began in the same manner as the good friday liturgy does today...with a silent entrance and a prostration on the ground by the celebrant and then the opening prayer. so it is incorrect to confuse the desire of some to restore this most ancient form of the liturgy with the desire to protestantize it. in its earliest form the mass was also celebrated facing eastward and the altar was veiled from the view of the people during the anaphora. at the conclusion of the eucharistic prayer the bread was broken and distributed to the people. there was no Agnus Dei. during the communion the psalm with the antiphon "Taste and See the Goodness of the Lord" was sung as it still is in the presanctified liturgy of the byzantine rite. so it is important to remember these facts about the roman rite rather than to assume that it was always the way it had become by the time of pius v. this evening i went mass in the novus ordo parish i attend. there were 5 opening rites: the bizarre greeting by the reader at the microfone, the opening song which the priest messes up and then suddenly stops and begins to laugh in front of everyone while they laugh too, the sign of the cross, the monologue by the priest which is said in a boisterous and silly manner and in which he comments on the messed up song and makes them laugh again, said gloria, and finally opening prayer. there is no solemnity in a mass that requires 5 opening rites, two of which cause outbursts of laughter in the congregation. so i personally would prefer that the novus ordo mass begin with a silent procession and prostration and go right to the opening prayer like on good friday. the act of prostration is the only thing at this point that could guarantee that the celebrant of the novus ordo will begin the mass in an attitude of reverence and prayerful solemnity. (i was the only one in the packed church not laughing)
here is an excellent article by fr Romano Thommasi entitled "Is the new mass really a return to Patristic sources" which goes into detail regarding the point i was just trying to make. please remember...the earliest form of the roman rite existed even before the Gloria and Agnus Dei existed. this article shows how the novus ordo is not, in fact, an accurate return to the patristic sources:
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/
a...e_20031027.html
mr. palad, is this the book you were talking about? The Liturgy of Vatican II by Barauna?
Without getting into specifics about what people believe the earliest forms of the Roman liturgy were like, and while there are problems with the simply made claim that the present form of the modern Roman liturgy represents a patristic form -- versus populum is a particularly good example of such a problem -- the more fundamental issue is that even if that were not a point of debate, its problematic to absolutize one period and push all others aside; in short, ignoring the good and beneficial organic developments that occurred through other eras.
This is a point Ratzinger/Benedict has kept trying to drive home.
Implement some reforms, do indeed "go back to the sources" and tidy some elements up, but don't ignore the good that came in other periods as well, or deem anything beyond a particular period as somehow problematic, even "impure" or decadent.
I had the pleasure of knowing a Monsignor who attended every session of the Council with our former bishop. What he told me about the council was fascinating. Namely, that most bishops did not have a clue what was going on because they couldn't understand Latin well enough to follow the proceedings. There were coffee shops and such set up in the Vatican. Many bishops spent their time socializing in these areas and their aids came and found them when it was time to vote on something. Many bishops never read the documents that were given to them but played cards at night.
One bishop from Canada said, "I don't buy any of this", but rather than staying and doing something about it, he just went home.
What it all says to me is that the whole process was controled and run by a very few.
Just to address something Carlos said: the fact that in 1966 a subset of Council fathers were interpreting their own statements from the very first document to emerge from the Council in a radical way does not in itself make this interpretation definitive. Things were changing culturally at lightning speed in the 1960s and many were being caught up in the spirit of the age. Once Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated its implementation was almost immediately made the responsibility of a radical group of experts; this interpretation then altered the common perception of what the fathers must have meant. The important question is: what does the constitution on the Liturgy really say? What did the fathers really intend at the time?
if one attends a parish run by an order of priests who seem to have the idea that the mass in the early church was one where there was laughter constantly (not the 'gift of laughter' which they have in other places in this archdiocese but the regular kind) then it becomes necessary to look to actual documents concerning the patristic era mass in the hope that making priests aware of them will change their current approach to the novus ordo form. i am sorry, but sudden outbursts of laughter throughout the opening parts of mass in a 19th century church in what some keep referring to as the most traditional diocese in the country causes a helpless feeling in me which disassociates me from whatever it is they are trying to do in that church.
'Liturgia e Bellezza' is a different book.
Publishing in English rather than Italian is simply a strategic exercise to increase the circulation of the book, especially outside Europe and the US.
now it is almost 4pm. at noon i attended what was referred to as a "high mass" for the feast of the immaculate conception. to my surprise it turned out to be a guitar mass exactly the same as the one depicted a few doors down on this blog. i remember the guitar masses from my early childhood...people had their hands folded in prayer and sometimes they used incense just like the mass today. but there was something about it that was different...in today's mass they changed all the 'he' pronouns to 'G=d'. the guitarist also had a very strident thesebootsaremadeforwalkin manner of playing. this combined with the folded hands caused me to be offended and when the priest started a long homily in a loud and boisterous tone i had to go outside till it was finished. i did not receive communion.
Dear Shawn and Robert;
Thank you for your comments. Like I said in my second post, I too am a believer in the hermeneutic of continuity and in liturgical restoration. What has long puzzled me is the way the radical aspects of the liturgical reform -- which, as I pointed out, actually began to be implemented right at the Council floor, barely a year after Sacrosanctum Concilum -- took over so quickly, with little apparent resistance to it.
I've always had the impression that this could have been possible only because ambiguous elements -- not necessarily "heretical" or irreconcilable with the indefectibility of the church, and even with the liturgical tradition, but elastic nonetheless -- can be found in Sacrosanctum Concilium itself. Many reputable scholars who are not extreme trads at all have said as much.
If what Fr. Beachy said is true... well, that also explains a lot! I think though, that the question of "intention" in the interpretation of SC and of other Vatican II documents needs more nuanced study. It may be very well possible that, in 1963, what the Council Fathers intended was nothing more than a modest reform of the 1962 Missal -- as the 1965 Ordo Missae would suggest. However, as a radical shift in world view took hold of ecclesiastical circles (and not a few of the Council Fathers) from 1964 - 1968, many of the same Fathers could have thought of their own intentions in 1963 as having being nothing more than seeds, that could be "modified" in the light of the fast-changing situations.
(I think I need to write a complete essay to elucidate what I'm thinking!)
I never said, by the way, that the 1966 conference participants made the definitive interpretation of SC. Only the Holy See could issue such definitive interpretations. (Even here, the interpretations from 1964 - 1994 notably differ in spirit from those that have been issued since 1996 to the present; it seems that the liturgical revolution at the top whose first fruits we are now seeing with Don Guido around, actually began with Cardinal Medina's work at the CDW).
As for hermeneutic of continuity, I find it telling that, during the chaos of the 70's and 80's, it was championed and used chiefly by laymen, not by hierarchs. What were the bishops thinking?
Dear anonymous, yes, I'm talking about the Barauna book(s). I'm confident enough in my own memory to refer to the book even though I last read it 4 years ago. However, if for some reason I have misrepresented the thrust of the conference the proceedings of which are recorded in it, please correct me.
I do vividly remember it as advocating liturgical revolution to an extent that makes the Novus Ordo look like an epitome of tradition.
"I've always had the impression that this could have been possible only because ambiguous elements -- not necessarily "heretical" or irreconcilable with the indefectibility of the church, and even with the liturgical tradition, but elastic nonetheless -- can be found in Sacrosanctum Concilium itself. Many reputable scholars who are not extreme trads at all have said as much."
I don't see the ambiguity (we must remember that Sacrosanctum Concilium only provided general guidelines for the future reform, as was proper). These guidelines would be interpreted in a traditional, liberal or radical form by others and don't reflect the general call to reform asked for by the Council.
The biggest problem with SC is that it put too much faith in individual Catholics. There is nothing wrong with legit inculturation, as long as one has a sense of Sacred Tradition (like the Orthodox Church, which has handled inculturation superbly well). Likewise, there is no problem with allowing the vernacular, so long as we know to maintain the great Gregorian chant and polyphony masterpieces of the past. The same applies to the specific call to organically reform the Ordo Missae, sacraments and sacramentals, the Breviary and liturgical year. Furthermore, allowing the bishop to decide to which extent an allowance is to be applied is a very traditional principle.
Unfortunately, for Vatican II and for us, the Church put too much faith in us. It is embarrassing to admit such a thing, but after 40+ years of liturgical breakdown, there is no other reasonable hypothesis. The bishops should have known that by 1963, the majority of Latin-rite Catholics (including cardinals and bishops) were not capable of handling the responsibility of completing the traditional liturgical reform. By this time we had replaced a sense of Sacred Tradition with obedience to our Patriarch, the Pope. And when the Pope turned out to not be a good replacement for Sacred Tradition, the house went wild.
"I do vividly remember it as advocating liturgical revolution to an extent that makes the Novus Ordo look like an epitome of tradition."
This would be difficult to achieve. If the plans of 1966 didn't envision creating a new Rite from scratch, the Novus Ordo would still be worse. Radical reform to an existing product is bad, but not as bad as starting completely over, like the Pauline Liturgy did.
Kenjiro
If I might add that it's a shame that in the process of trying to appeal to Protestanism by watering down our traditions, according to how some people see it, we have caused further suspision in the eyes of the Orthodox whom we should be trying to reconcile with more than anyone else.
stigmatized
It is good and important to understand the early mass. However, as our faith is about a live tradition, we expect things to mature over time. I believe, for example, that there is a good reason why people only received on the tongue in the middle ages while the early church wasn't refined enough to understand the implications of receiving in the hand. Just because it happened back when doesn't mean it's better or even desirable. If the Church and Her liturgy grows and matures, it's a shame to cause a rupture in that growth for an antiquarian ideal that is misguided. That's my personal view on that, and you probably disagree with me however it comes down to respecing devopling growth that does not come from rupture but from building on what has come before.
dear Daniel, actually i agree with you, and when i gave my petition with 30 names requesting the old mass last july to the pastor nothing happened. so i asked one of the other priests and he said, "Are you really in the boundaries of this parish?" (it takes me 10 minutes to walk there) this is the same church i spoke of in another comment above. they said they were having a 'high mass' on saturday. it turned out to be a guitar mass with incense and a lot of he pronouns had been eliminated. another priest there messes up hymns and stops them in the middle to elicit laughter and be an icebreaker. in other words, traditional forms are icey and regular, warm people like to laugh during mass. so i can only appeal to the forms of the ancient church now that even EcclesiaDei has ignored my pleas.
Dear stigmatized.
Understood. Must have been a disheartening experience.
hello daniel, yes, it was more than disheartening. my requesting the old mass has led to a lot of suspicion from people in the parish. one young person said that the church has advanced to this type of liturgy and that by my wanting to go backwards i was showing that i was "outside the church". when i wrote to the cardinal and asked him to appoint a priest to say mass in the old rite for us his office responded by saying that the 'council of priests' would decide how best to implement the motu proprio. so i have nowhere else to go. reading this blog only highlights my nonexistence as the people who post here are coming from supportive situations where they are treated by clergy as though they are real. as i said, people are now telling me i am not part of the church because i want the old rite. they sent around an email with the names of 'dissenting people' in the church. at the end of the list was marcel lefebvre's name. i told them i did not think that his name should be on the list with the others and they said that this was a sign of my being in schism. so when i go to a guitar mass there and see the people who say i am in schism i do not feel like receiving communion.
Doesn't it bother any of you that the Novus Ordo was approved and disseminated with the full weight and force of the Papacy? What does that say of the link between the Papacy and the doctrinal reforms of this rite?
Stephen,
We're talking here about the perceptions of Archbishop Marini and that school.
I am a child of the reform. I was born in 1968 and I have known nothing but the Novus Ordo.
There was a real problem in communicated just exactly what this reform entailed. I have found, and still find, great differences in the implementation of the Novus Ordo. There is a difference between dioceses, a difference between parishes and, perhaps, even countries.
For example, it is almost impossible to find a church in the Diocese of London, Canada, that still has a high altar. In my diocese of Pembroke, there are still many churches that have the High Alar and the side altars intact. But even within the diocese, it depended on the individual pastor. Some removed the high altar. Some did not.
Some of the older priests who lived through that time tell of the confusion. They didn't know what they were suppose to do. They were trained to obey the bishop. If the bishop was big into stripping the church of everything Catholic, then the priests did what they were told. How many of them have told me how much they regretted what they did but felt or were told that they had to do it!
Look at what has happened is good in order to understand what we must do to once again restore the beauty of the Mass. But if we dwell on it, complaining about it, only dwelling on it, then we are only complaining. The road ahead has been made easier but it will take a long time yet so patience is the order of the day.
summorum pontificum said that if people want the old mass then the bishop must appoint someone to say it for them if the priests of the parish won't do so. when the bishop says that it is up to the priests to decide then someone who requests it is at their mercy. being at someone's mercy is different than lacking in patience.
don't you think that if a parish had the real intention of honoring the request of someone to have the old mass that they would at least celebrate the novus ordo ad orientem and with chant? you do not need any special training to do that. the refusal to celebrate the novus ordo except in the manner devised by people in stlouis in the 1980's is a sign that such requests will not be honored. it is not a question of patience at all.
Stigmatized:
I wasn't talking about your particular situation when I called for patience. I am sorry that no one is taking your request seriously and I think it a shame.
Many priests are against the Extra-Ordinary Form and will be hostile to it.
I'm sorry you took my comments to mean your situation but that was not my intent.
fr Beachey, a person should not have to ask for what is inherent to his rite. that the motuproprio makes us have to ask sets us up to be entertainment for priests. i should never have had to write those three letters or to post in this manner in order to have someone acknowledge my spiritual needs. thank you for acknowledging them in a virtual manner. but you can't take away the huge flower arrangement currently in front of the altar in the cathedral of this archdiocese and if you wanted to say mass in the old rite there you would end up covered in debris.
Shawn,
Agreed. The link established is from Marini to Bugnini to PPVI. Why does Bugnini take all the heat, and not PPVI, his boss, for whom he worked, and who approved and promulgated everything?
anonymous:
Are you also stigmatized? I am confused by your post. Sorry.
sorry, fr Beachey, i forgot to sign my name on the last post because i was so upset that there is still no sign of the old rite coming to a church that i can walk to. so i ended up being anonymous. i have also noticed that they are using the old100th hymn tune more and more at the daily mass i go to. now they are using it for ubi caritas.
In our parish in Brainerd, Mn. there was a petition of 147 signers asking for the "old Mass" that were given to our Bishop & also to the parish Priest, this was over a year ago, even before the Motu Proprio, we have heard nothing as of this date.What else can we do?
All I see here are vague generalisations and snide remarks about someone in Holy Orders, supposedly by "traditional" Catholics.
(1) Most of the complaints herein have more to do with aesthetics than with doctrine.
(2) I defy traditionalists to find one doctrinal error in the Missal of Paul VI.
And I am thankful to the Lord for the ministry of H. H. Pope +Benedict XVI and H. G. Archbishop +Piero Marini.
I am in total agreement with MGH.
How could I email you in private ?
6 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
