Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Many thanks for your thoughtful statement, Shawn. (I always come to NLM when I want sanity and commitment.) What I've read of Sacramentum Caritatum is very heartening. It will strengthen the spirits of those of us who do work in average parishes and will help us encourage those who are afraid of Latin and chant. Many of these folks are very fond of the Holy Father and his clear and understandable comments will go a long way with them.
And as Shawn said, we don't know what's down the road. Right now, I plan to print out the Exhoration and use it as my spiritual reading for the remainder of the season. (Or until my "oh my gosh, Holy Week is here and the choir is still wobbling" panic sets in and I devote myself entirely calling on my favorite liturgical saints for favors.)
I agree with Shawn Tribe. Let us find the good, work with what we've been given so hard, and keep praying.
A language of movement permeates this exhortation. In its very words, there is drama: the liturgy is going somewhere. We mustn't forget that. Most certainly, in our inflated expectations for a miraculous transformation, we have blinded ourselves to the miraculous healing witnessed before our very eyes. I cannot help but think that all of us who desire an exhortation-motu proprio combination in some way mirror the the blind man in Mk 8:22-26: we desire restoration, but it may take two doses.
Ultimately, we must remember the pedagogy of the Father who recognized the immediate and painful dilemma of his fallen children. The Father could have redeemed them immediately (after all what is more immediate and necessary than this grave situation of sin?), but he waited until the fulness of time to send his Son.
If the Church, then, is truly his Mystical Body, and the Pope his Vicar-- should we not expect a similar thinking and movement in the actions of that vicar?
Let us not fall into the grevious pretense of knowing better than our Mother Church. She knows what is good for her children-- even when it comes to a dose of humility and patience.
Sean,
I have to say that with the lack of concrete suggestions in this document my hope for a true "reform of the reform" seems a little more distant now.
I get the feeling that if we are to look for a return liturgical sanity then it is to Traditional Roman Rite that we shall need to turn.
Which is sad as that means most Catholics will need to wait a very long time for a reverent Mass that truly expresses the Catholic theology of the Mass.
Or am I perhaps too pessimistic in this regard?
Having read thru the offical Vatican script of this weak document, I am unfortunatly very much less inclined either to believe much of anything regarding any forthcoming "Motu Proprio" regarding the Tridentine Latin Mass.
Most of which I pinned my hopes on were hearsay and speculation....and that was perhaps foolish. However considering His past reputation, and the book on liturgy He wrote as a Cardinal, I expected a document very much in keeping with Benedict XVI's views in His book.
Issues such as "ad orientam" altars, or at least encouragement to use them, were not even mentioned.
This is NOT the first time that this man has disappointed those who had placed such great hope in him. It is the latest in a string of about 10 significant milestones in which Benedict XVI went directly against the wonderful image and opinion and record that was His before His election. This includes nauseating appeasements to critics (especially to the reaction to his Regensburg speech), and horrendous appointments of radical liberals to positions of extreme importance (Levada at CDF, Hummes at the Cong. for Clergy, and a new appointment to Legeslative Texts). All are flaming liberals (Hummes is actually a dissident).
After all this, the document released today which is more or less an attempt to lead a cheer for the reforms of Vatican II proves the SSPX and Bishop Fellay all the more correct.
I have infinitely less respect for Benedict XVI after this document, and no longer expect and "Motu Proprio".
Considering the appaling weakness of this document not to address any of the liturgical disasters since Vatican II and to correct them, I believe that Benedict XVI is too mild, weak and indecisive to publish any "Motu Proprio"
He is afraid of the Bishops and Cardinals, and that is a shame.
He has been described as a weak, meek and mild professor. It's unfortunate that's not what He still is.
Cardinal Biffi would have been a perfect Pope.
Mr. Shoda:
I beg you to reconsider the grace accompanying the office of the Vicar of Christ. Similarly, I exhort you to reconsider the power of the Holy Spirit in the Church, particularly in the election of a Pope AND in the exercising of said Pope's authority.
Desire for liturgical reform is not license for moral revolution. I point you toward the failure of Martin Luther.
A Seminarian
Kenjiro, please calm down. I believe this document is a very important first step in the restoration of the liturgy because it is speaking and providing encouragement and support to the younger clergy and bishops who are far more traditionally minded than their elder confreres. They have a document from the highest authority in the Church to provide them cover from the slings and arrows of the dying group known as liturgical "progressives." Rome wasn't built in a day and a restoration of the liturgy will take time. Dum spiro spero! Tom
Did anyone find the reference to 1 Corinthians 11:23 interesting?
I say that based on a comment I read recently, maybe by Msgr. Schmitz, regarding looking for "signs" in the apostolic exhortation RE: the motu proprio.
Or was it just a divine coincidence, considering the inscription on the Archbishop's tomb? (http://wwgb.seminaire-econe.com/doc/memoriam/
ph_3c.htm)
Kenjiro,
You might consider that you often set yourself up for disappointment by unrealistic expectations on the one hand, and impatient and unnecessary absolutes on the other. You're taking a "microwave", "I want it now" cultural approach to issues that require simmering if they are truly going to be resolved.
It's not going to do much good to try to sledgehammer obedience if there isn't a conversion of people to proper foundational theology and such first. If you even get the end you desire in the short term (which is itself not a given), the problem is quite likely to simply rear its head again very quickly.
There is no magic fix. You need to get over that idea. The fix is for the long haul and Benedict knows that better than anyone.
I hope you're right, Shawn. I hope there's a motu proprio that frees the classical form of the rite. Paired with such, this Exhortation may do some good, but it's clear which document is going to have to do the heavy lifting.
I'm a little confused by those who say this is a first step and be patient and first we set out the theological basis and we encourage the faithful. What about LA and EE and RS? Why weren't they enough? How much will be enough before we can move forward? Heck, what about Dominicae Cenae? That was 1980, the second year of JPII's pontificate. In some ways it was much tougher than the current Exhortation. Now, it's all but forgotten. When will one of these things take? And why do you believe this is the one?
Seriously, what distinguishes this document from the others such that you have reason to believe that this one will change things?
"But before today many people noted that this document would likely be relatively 'quiet' about it, precisely because of the motu proprio which is a bit more of a bombshell."
Um... except that no one has seen this Motu proprio yet, so that characterizing it as a "bombshell" might very well reflect thinking that is equally wishful.
Kenjiro,
I couldn't agree more. Read the document; confirmation of "Blessed Sacrament Chapels," lay homilies before readings, confirmation of the Preparatio, novel dismissals. There's nothing to cheer here. "Suggestions" that seminarians learn Latin? Heck, the granddaddy scrap of them all, Sacrosanctam Concilium, stated unequivocally that the laity should know Latin. Nearly "50 years down the road" we know what a "brilliant chess move" that was.
Everything I've read above is self-delusional happy-speak. The revolution continues apace, not out of papal conviction I suspect, but something even more loathsome - papal fear.
Be that as it may, I must say however that I've not yet written off the Motu Proprio. I believe the signs indicating it's existence are more than baseless rumor. But the question is, will it have teeth, or just slippery old gums?
The heart of this document is in paragraphs 9 to 11. They are remarkably strong in their theology. I think they are meant to be the rudder by which future conversations are steered, including conversations about liturgical discipline.
(However, liturgical discipline is obviously addressed, particularly in paragraph 35, and in 38-42.)
Today I received my copy of Lourdes magazine,the English version of the official publication of the Shrine at Lourdes.In it are two pictures of concelebrated masses where all the celebrants wear no chasuble,and there is an article of a woman whose ministry is dance.The story is accompanied by a picture of her dancing during Mass at Lourdes.I read this after I read the Exhortation.I see no hope for change.The tepid tone of the exhortation seems to cut the legs from out Cardinal Arinze's and Archbishop Ranjith's recent strong critiques of post conciliar liturgical reform. How can you connect the exhortations praise of the liturgical reform and Ranjith'statement that it has prodeuced empty pews? And dear seminarian I have no doubt the Holy Spirit prompted the cardinals to elect Benedict,but I would be careful stating absolutely that the holy Spirit gives us the popes .For then you would have to explain Alexander VI.
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.
Perhaps. But many of us will be long gone well before then, and in the meantime, thousands or millions of souls lost will be added to those already lost because the beating heart of the Church, the liturgy, remains so weakened by unaddressed abuses and defects.
But for us in the here and now. ..... Now that the apostolic exhortation is out, am I correct in thinking the optimal strategy for active prayerful participation at Sunday Mass remains unchanged? The same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Whereas the old precept obliged "hearing Mass", the goal now is to hear as little as possible. Thus, if a TLM is unavailable, take your 1962 missal with you anyway. Then, for instance, at Novus Ordo Mass:
-- If the opening hymn postdates Vatican II, tune it out and turn to the Prayers Before Mass section of the missal.
-- At offertory time, ignore the Jewish table prayers and pray the traditional offertory prayers in your missal. (Once you get into it, they sandwich nicely around the two "Blessed be God forevers".)
-- Unless the priest uses EP I, tune him out (except your adoration at Consecration and elevations) and pray privately the essentials of the Roman Canon. (If he's using the quickie EP II, you'll have to be very selective.)
-- Before Holy Communion, insert at least the second of the three beautiful communion prayers that are now optional for the priest, and say the traditional Confiteor on your way to communion.
In this way you can actually pray the Mass yourself, even if not many others do so. It looks like this is the way it'll still have to be, for some time now. Too bad.
Rev. McAfee, the point of your example about Lourdes is unclear. Do you mean to tell us that there are still liturgical abuses? Every abuse that you can list has already been condemned by previous papal documents. And your assertion that the tone of the AE cuts the legs out from under Arinze and Ranjith is dubious. Indeed from your vantage point you may see no hope for change, but there may be higher vantage points than yours. As a lay person I suggest that you teach your parishioners about the content of the Apostolic Exhortation and encourage them to read it. It will likely be edifying for many of them.
Fr. McAfee,
You may feel a little cheered by something I'll post later.
Also, we should expect to see some greater divergences before we finally see unity. As some will note, the liturgical winds are indeed changing. This will cause them to "step up" certain things. Expect it.
Boko, because again, first steps include a variety of angles and it takes time. Think of it rather than "first steps" as the "first stage"; and stages have various sub-tasks within them.
Re: the MP; you're right, we don't have it yet, but it also seems to make sense that if there is need to assauge concern about "abandoning the Council" on the part of bishops, etc., then this document preceeding the MP is what makes more sense than vice versa.
The MP could now well follow quickly now upon this document so that the memory of it is fresh. We shall have to see.
Recall that this document was to come out in Oct. which was when the MP was also rumoured to come out. At that point, we had the slow down caused by the concern of the French bishops, and lo and behold, the apostolic exhortation was also delayed. It may be coincidence, but it may not. It may be strategic. (It seems all the more strategic given the fact that this is not a radical document which would have necessarily required a half year delay.)
Belloc--I couldn't have said it better! It doesn't necessarily follow or really matter how much latin/gregorian chant you've studied in the seminary, if when ordained, and assigned to a parish--all you sing and allow is 'On Eagles' Wings'--and songs of similar ilk. If we're all honest here, there is often a great disconnect between the theory that is learned in school, and the practical application.
Shawn,
How is this document an advance from 1980's Dominicae Cenae? Things are better now than they were then, but what role have papal documents played in this?
Some of us were hoping for something more. This is weaker than previous writings of Benedict on ad orientem, to name one area.
And Eleatic Stranger, some of us are not content with the current state of the liturgy as lived in our parishes. If you can make an argument that this document will improve things, make it. Otherwise, you're just kicking long-suffering Catholics who just want a more reverent, God-focused liturgy while we're down. I'm used to asking my spiritual fathers for bread and getting stones; what I don't need is some ultra-er montane than thou calling me an ingrate when I say, "Uh, Father, this isn't bread."
Disappointment is not the opposite of the theological virtue of hope, nor is gloating and I-told-you-so-ing its expression.
I don't think anyone is saying that this isn't a fine theological reflection on the Eucharist. But many of us doubt its efficacy and its import.
My apologies. I didn't mean to be 'kicking' anyone. I was just trying to lighten the mood. I am actually sympathetic with the disapointment: I was really hoping for more, especially 'Ad Orientem'. But we can be disapointed and laugh, (even at ourselves); perhaps my sense of humor isn't for everyone. So again, I apologize. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa
After reading the Apostolic Exhortation,I really do not believe that if there is a Papal statement on the Classical Rite,that it will be much more than exactly that:a Papal confirmation that the Classical Rite has not been abrogated,and that priests may offer it privately.
We know this already,so therefore nothing new.The bishops who hate the mass will continue to make up excuses as to why the mass,is not in demand and we do not have priests to offer it,it is not pastoral and so on.We are not going to get more Tridentine mass's,just more runaround.
God bless you.
In this way you can actually pray the Mass yourself
I find this surprising, given your actual recommendations. One can pray the actual Mass according to the Pauline Missal by attending a no-frills, no-music "low" NO Mass.
Check out Fr. Z's comments on the Englishing of the Exhortation. Looks like there has been some funny business in the section regarding the use of Latin... but on the other hand, it might give some people some things to be slightly less unhappy about...
I find this surprising, given your actual recommendations. One can pray the actual Mass according to the Pauline Missal by attending a no-frills, no-music "low" NO Mass.
Perhaps you didn't notice I called my suggestion an "optimal strategy for active prayerful participation at Sunday Mass", which is generally somewhat cacophonous in the typical parish, whichever Sunday Mass you attend.
I myself attend a somewhat quieter daily Mass, though not quite with the pristine no-frills, no-music purity you indicated. Even so, I am able to participate more prayerfully if I insert silently some of the offertory prayers so sorely lacking in the Pauline missal, as well as the sacrificial (virtual) essentials of the Roman Canon that are missing especially in the quickie EP II. (I must confess that I don't actually carry a 1962 missal with me, but instead have the needed additional prayers available on inserts in the Magnificat missalette that I do carry with me to the Novus Ordo.)
This way, I don't have to wait Shawn's 50 more years for the actual interior participation that Vatican II called for 40 years ago.
Paragraph 63 was an enigma my first skim through this morning, but since thinking over it today, could this be putting some foundation for the motu proprio?
I was very pleased at all the recommendations about rebuilding Catholic culture: adoration, processions, pilgrimages, the office, etc. Not a cure-all, but wasn't expecting one, either.
It's a stretch to say you'd have to wait "my" 50 years for interior participation. I'm speaking about a long term view of reforming the reform and the reality it won't happen overnight.
It's further advanced in some places than others.
Perhaps you didn't notice I called my suggestion an "optimal strategy for active prayerful participation at Sunday Mass", which is generally somewhat cacophonous in the typical parish, whichever Sunday Mass you attend.
One can find a "low" Sunday Mass in many places--it's usually the 7:00 A.M., and often the 8:00 as well.
And I was thinking of Sunday when I originally posted.
Everyone has to remember that he merely put together what the Synod Fathers suggested. This was not entirely written by himself, and moved upon ideas his brother bishops brought up. He is trying to be a good Pontiff, and his document is beautiful. If we make a big jump now everything we have worked for will be a waste. If the reform of the reform is not taken slow we will be in the same old mess.
Let the Spirit Work!!!
~A Pontifical Seminarian
p.s. Pray for the Pope, don't complain so much.
On the reference to Latin:
Watch for a "hermeneutic of restriction." Already at my web site, where I quoted a bulletin item for the coming weekend, a commenter said, of the reference to using Latin in the liturgy, oh, that just refers to international gatherings, not parish Masses!
I think it's clear that it refers to both, consistent with Sacrosanctum Concilium.
This document will be helpful for those who want it's help, but not for those who don't.
Well, the Apostolic Exhortation is out. I'm still digesting it and unpacking the "vatican speak".
There are a lot of practical suggestions that, while moderate, should be fruitful. The section on the use of Latin is very pointed, let's hope bishops heed it. I'm a little disappointed that there does not seem to be any mention of "ad orientem" celebration.
I agree with those who say that reform, to be healthy, must be slow. But not too slow! It will start as good bishops encourage it and good parish priests "sell" it to their parishioners.
At the moment many priests can neither "talk the talk or walk the walk", but good priests will learn the basics of liturgical latin and follow the rubrics.
There is a lot of hope in this document, especially if the expected Motu Proprio follows it. Pope Benedict will be much freer to express his heartfelt desires in the Motu Proprio and those who want will follow it slowly driving the "smoke of Satan" out of the liturgy.
Sacramentum Caritatis may have disappointed some (including me, I admit) because the document initially comes across as ambiguous and indecisive. In fact, it doesn’t even say anything new- what Benedict XVI calls for in Sacramentum Caritatis is basically the same as what John Paul II was saying throughout his reign.
To be honest I cannot see this Exhortation as having any kind of direct impact on the Church. One can easily use the words of His Holiness in this Exhortation to support a number of positions on the Liturgy. However, the issue of the Liturgy is a very delicate matter, so we cannot expect Sacramentum Caritatis to be an end to the issue, with critical and decisive pronouncements.
But that’s not to say that this document isn’t significant- quite the contrary in fact. What we can see is recognition of the problems and abuses in the modern Liturgy and of the need for a critical scrutiny of the current Liturgy and eventually concrete solutions. And this is crucial to genuine reform in the Liturgy, which will most likely be a long and pitted road.
I've seen the typical quotes from it and got the gist of the Exhortation, although I doubt that I'll read the whole thing. I must say, while I am not at all a fan of heavy-handed leadership, I think it is missing here. Not so much of abolishing vernacular but a specific call for, say, the Latin Pater Noster or knowledge of at least the "Jubilate Deo" ordinary. Something specific for parishes to implement or correct specific abuses, although I guess that was the job of RS. As Fr. Fox has pointed out, this does leave no question room for what the Church leadership asks of our liturgies. It's no longer a controversial point to say that the pope wants Latin and chant, because it's there in plain sight. I just wish the document could have been more specific.
As for myself, I just got back from a Marine graduation in San Diego. While I was there I attended the Catholic Mass on base. Horrendous. The whole time there was a bald cantor in front flailing his arms while warbling loudly into a microphone, the priest not only ommitted "men" from the Creed but changed it to "people", and the whole thing was celebrated as though it was just a waste of time (with the exception being the cantor's ego gratification). Being at my current parish really has blinded me to the plight of Catholics elsewhere. Although I can't get on board with it, I at least understand the "abolish the Novus Ordo" mindset some have now. I don't know that the chaplain would read this document, but it's a sure sign that B16 is getting to work in his pontificate and the tide is changing. Hopefully this document will get a lot of people on board with the movement to restore reverence to the Mass.
If there is to be a reform by indirect means, I would like to see the Holy Father encourage orders that market themselves as being "orthodox" (e.g. LC, but others as well) to be at the vanguard of liturgical renewal as well, and to improve the liturgical formation of their own seminarians.
Let's face it, friends: This document is basically a bust, and it should be clear by now that there will be no reform of the reform in this pontificate. I also doubt that the long-rumored motu proprio will ever see the light of day. But none of this should either surprise or disappoint us.
Does anyone really think that another document from Rome, of whatever character, will by itself change the liturgical praxis in parish churches, college chapels, and religious houses around the world. Our problem has never been a lack of documents and teaching; our problem is a lack of obedience to the norms we already have, and more teaching will not solve our problem.
By analogy, think of the millions upon millions of Catholics who use contaception. Does anyone want to suggest that their immoral behavior would be corrected by one more Roman instruction? Only the obedience of faith which comes from and leads to conversion will change their lives, and only the obedience of faith will lead priests and bishops to celebrate the sacred liturgy with true reverence and devotion.
Most simply, this is not a crisis of documents; it is a crisis of faith. More documents or better documents, therefore, will not lead us out of this liturgical desert. Only the radical reorientation of conversion can do that. Yes, I wish that Benedict XVI were the bold reformer I expected him to be on the day of his election, but I will not allow my disappointment in him to distract me from the real nature of our struggle. Even perfect Roman documents are no more than straw when the clerics asked to implement them simply won't do it.
After reading Sacramentum Caritatis when it first was posted on the Vatican site this morning, about an hour after I said Mass, I followed some of the comments made on the blogs and spent some time trying to formulate my own reaction.
Fr Jay Scott Newman expressed it so well, that I don't have anything else to say. I urge you to go back and reread is comment.
The problem is not documents or no documents, it is a one of faith.
Fr.Newman-AMEN!
There is no motu proprio. It's all a big rumor. I'm sure of that now.
But in a way it may not matter at all. Fr. Jay Scott Newman is right. It's up to us and our prayers because we're not going to get help. IT's just as simple as that.
As I see it, the essence of the Holy Father's teaching on the Eucharist is that it perfect God's love within us, so that we may be holy. That was the core of 'Deus caritas est' and that is re-iterated here in 'Sacramentum Caritatis'.
Liturgy, in a classic formulation, is for the glory of God and the sanctification of His people; holiness is the aim. As such, Pope Benedict XVI wishes to exhort the Church to discover, in union with the saints, an "authentically eucharistic Christian spirituality".
The reactions of some to this document show how truly distant we are from this aim. It is these unfavorable reactions and public statements of disloyalty to the Successor of Peter, not the document itself, that are truly most disappointing and upsetting.
I think the breadth of this document requires careful reading, prayer and thought. The range of topics covered, with relative brevity, indicates the centrality of the Eucharist to the Christian life and the Church; It touches every aspect of our life in Christ.
This could never have been a document dealing with the minutiae, but even so, it has said much of value that affirms the liturgical traditions of the West. That some are disappointed only requires one, at the very least, to ask what ones expectations were and whether they are justified and faithful to the mind of the Church.
I believe we should listen more carefully to what the Pope is saying before stomping our feet like petulant children and pouting because he did not say what we want.
If one were to do that, we would miss the point of the Eucharist and the sanctifying grace It imparts, whatever the rite and liturgical signs that accompany It.
That some are disappointed only requires one, at the very least, to ask what ones expectations were and whether they are justified and faithful to the mind of the Church.
Well, it should not be surprising if the reason why expectations differ is that they were formed on the basis of different "ecclesiologies"?
"The purpose of this Exhortation
5. This Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation seeks to take up the richness and variety of the reflections and proposals which emerged from the recent Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops – ... – and to offer some basic directions aimed at a renewed commitment to eucharistic enthusiasm and fervour in the Church."
There we have it. It's an Exhortation, folks. Not a new Constitution On The Liturgy. Receive it in good faith for what it is, rather than castigating it for not being what it isn't.
I have to agree with some of the opinions being expressed here, especially by Fr. Newman, in regards to obedience and faith. It is one thing for the Holy Father to say XYZ, and it is totally another for people to follow XYZ.
We live in an era where everything is open to question, and personal opinion and interpretation reigns- if someone disagrees with a teaching of the Church, they simply cease to follow that teaching. But that’s getting off-topic.
This leads me to say that in order to affect change we have to work on the local-level, promoting reform in Liturgical celebration and the use Classical Latin Rite in individual Dioceses and even parishes, rather then wait for decrees from Rome that might not even come (and if they do, who will listen if there is not already progress locally?). That is not to say that action must be independent from Rome, or in disobedience- such a thing is unthinkable- but that we must use the resources which Holy See has already given us.
michigancatholic,
Still, I don't believe the MP to be just a rumor. There are too many people in high places who've publically and without qualms acknowledged its existence, from Msgr. Schmitz of the Institute of Christ the King, to Cardinals Castrillon and Medina and Ricard, to many other sources.
The question does remain, however, as to whether it will ever see the light of day. I have trouble believing it won't.
I'm actually a bit shocked at the reaction from some of the priests on this post. If you can't take this document and run with it, I feel very sorry for you. I could sell this document day in and day out. Look, Father Newman, you've already been doing at St. Mary's what this document says you can do. You can do more and have cover. How could anyone criticize you now? All you have to say is the Pope himself has restated the essence of Sacrosanctum Concilium which is what YOU ARE DOING. You can read line by line from the document and rebut your critics. It provides NO comfort to Trautman or Mahony or "Sister" Chittester. Did this document endorse liturgical dance, glass chalices, communion in the hand, altar girls,inclusive langauge, Haagen/Haas, guitars? I don't think so, unless you live on a parallel universe of reality.Come on,get with it, be men! Tom
I think Br. Lawrence Lew has exactly the right idea.
Furthermore, I think that it bears remembering that many, many times the Holy Father has preached, strongly, against moralism. Christianity is not about rules. It's about love, truth, and freedom.
People who think that this Pope is or should be all about rules are going to be disappointed, no matter what good things he says. Because he's not about that.
To me, this seems like it is preparing the way for the Moto Propio and then slow reform of the reforms. The Holy Father would not drop a bomb like the Pauline Rite was dropped. He moves slowly and organically.
Yes, Jonathan. The news is not that there's anything new in this document; there isn't. The news is that we are going to have to pick up the slack because it's not going to be done for us.
Garrett, I didn't say there wasn't one. I believe Cdl Castrillon Hoyos when he speaks. I said I thought we'd never see it.
TJM,
I think you missed the point of my post. Many people involved in various parts of the new liturgical movement quite reasonably expected BXVI to do much more than repeat the norms given in various sources for the past 40 years. For most of those decades Joseph Ratzinger had written with great clarity about the mistakes made and the wrong turns taken, but in the two years since his election to the papacy, that brilliant critic has not been much in evidence (even leaving the dreadful Piero Marini at his post). That curious disconnect had, I submit, caused many observers to hope that this document would be the beginning of the reforms now postponed nearly two years, and with its publication today, we now know that those hopes were not well-founded. That's what I mean by saying that the document is a bust.
Then I go on to say that upon reflection we can see that more and better documents will not, in any event, bring about the reform of the reform. Only the obedience of faith will do that, and though I did not say so explicitly, my implicit counsel was the same as yours: Get to work!
Father Newman: I am truly sorry if I misconstrued your words. Setting aside the substance of the document for a moment, who would you rather be after this document came out, Mahony or Archbishop Burke? Although as many point out His Holiness may have been restating what has been said over 40 years in various documents, in my view, this is far more powerful because it is in ONE document, not scattered in various documents. It is also being published in 2007, not 1967, so the old "superseded" argument has been taken apart. Moreover, Seminarians are being exhorted to learn Latin to celebrate Mass, etc., etc. I believe His Holiness is laying out a strategy that even a Mahony will get. I just pray that you and other priests will make the most of this document. Please keep doing what you're doing at St. Mary's because when I retire I want to be there and enjoy liturgical peace. Pax tecum. Tom
As with the past papacy, the things that got done, got done because people prayed, and then yelled and screamed. Same old, same old. Well, and also because of the Situation which made people finally admit there was a rhinocerous in the middle of the aisle that they couldn't hide anymore.
At least Benedict isn't going around kissing the holy books of other religions. It could be (and has been) worse.
Im beginning to realioze that changeis happening from the bottom to top, not the other way around.This document gives those of us in the trenches a little more justification to argue with our pastors concerning latin, chant etc etc. Its now a little harder for my previous pastor to say with as much certanty " I dont care what the documents say, im not having latin" In the long run this may be way more effective then a top down approach that would feel good to all of us but may in fact be overturned by the next pope and ignored by the bishops
I keep saying this, but: reread paragraphs 9 to 11.
Anyone who has studied graduate level theology (Fr.? Fr.?) should be able to discern 1) the kind of rhetoric about the Eucharist that the Holy Father is critiquing, and 2) the effectiveness and finality of his critique. It is masterful and it will last.
Pope Benedict is a theologian-Pope. Do you have any idea how important that is, and how rare, to have a Pope who is a top-flight theologian?
Would you really rather have a cop?
Nope, but I'm praying already for the next one to have some decent management skills. We haven't seen that in decades. We just got done with 25 years of existential phenomenology, for pete's sake, and now a theologian.
No wonder people think they can do anything they want!
Don Roy, as always, great practical insights and advice. The doubleknit dinosaurs are on the run! Regards, Tom
Henry,
Funny thing, I have been doing almost exactly what you have suggested, for some time. I will try to incorporate the suggestions that I have not yet implemented at KMass tomorrow.
BTW, a good pocket prayerbook with the TLM in it (mostly in English), is the "Catholic Prayer Book for the Marine Corps" (of WWII vintage but now reprinted by Roman Catholic Books). I can carry it in my coat pocket so it is very handy for work days.
All the best.
Criticism of the document is neither petulent nor disloyal.To say one is disloyal betrays a certain ultramontane attitude,to say to criticize is petulent is ridiculous.Most of those crtical of the document are people who feel that they have been let down by someone that they thought would lead us out of the desert.I bet practically every critic of the document on this blog has read the works on the liturgy by Cardinal Ratzinger.I know I have and I have also read everything he has said on the topic-I am a Benedictphile.It is the case of what could have been.Maybe if you are ina priory things are rosier but out in the trenches this document gives no support for those who are actually trying to renem the liturgy.These men,who take a lot of opprobrium from their people ,perhaps their fellow priests,and at times their bishop,are doing what they are doing and taking heat for it because they have readRatzinger and were moved.It is like a general summoning you to take the hill and when you get everything ready he is nowhere to be found.I bet not one of these critics is not a follower of Benedict.They love him as Paul loved Peter when he told him how disappointed he was with him.By the way Catherine of Siena was a far more severe critic of a Pope than any of the men here.
Perhaps Benedict XVI doesn't see many problems with the present situation. Perhaps some adjustments, but no change. It is a matter of ideology, he is not a traditionalist, just a conciliar conservative.
Do you seriously think he spent 25 years at the CDF watching home videos of people crying over mass abuse just so he could see nothing?
Humboldt, how much J. Ratzinger have you read? I've read enough to know he knows.
I'm not at all sure I could say that about many high churchmen, but Benedict knows.
okay, I find it odd that Latin is primarily to be used at "international gatherings", however since these come once a decade for many, and never for most, how do people ever learn the Mass parts to participate in these latin mega-masses?
I've been to three in my life with JPII....and NOBODY at the last one I was at in Rome in 2000 knew ANY of the Latin responses for the Mass in my acre of the 2,000,000 person crowd except me? Funny thing, is that the Church is being entirely equitable in this respect....it didn't matter what continent these people were from or what culture or skin color....they are all given Aggiornamento's gift of being totally ignorant of Catholic Tradition in equal measure.
They are certainly consistent when they wish to be!
Today is nothing more than another example of liturgical defeatism from Rome.
I will await the Easter Bunny....ermmm....I mean the Moto Proprio with great joy this Easter!
Interesting thing: The news media is reporting this as a "conservative" document and picking out all the stuff about remarriage and celibacy in the priesthood. I think it shows the width of the gap between common opinions.
Matt, you make me laugh. I know exactly what you mean. No planning whatsoever, but that's the norm, isn't it?
This doesn't seem right - "occasional abuses"? Is that correctly translated, I wonder? Latin anyone?
Yes its a crisis of faith, for example there's a vocations crisis "even in countries of long standing Christian tradition."
WHY IS THAT?
AND WHERE IS THAT LONGSTANDING TRADITION NOW?
WHEN WERE THERE ALTAR GIRLS IN THAT LONGSTANDING TRADITION?
WHERE IS COMMUNION ON THE HAND IN THAT TRADITION?
WHY DO I HAVE TO GO TO THE ABOMINATION OF A MASS AT MY COLLEGE CAMPUS MINISTRIES?
WHY IS MAHONY NOT EXCOMMUNICATED?
HOW BOUT HANS KUNG?
LORD, these are just a few questions I have...
and btw, my grandfather's crisis of faith started in 1965, now 5 of his seven children are apostates.
and Ephrem, not a cop, but an inquisitor, who wears a tiara and cope. That's what the Church needs now.
Matt:
Although it's been pointed out that the document promotes the use of Latin at all Masses, not merely international celebrations, I think Latin is a great tool for Masses in places of mixed nationality. Maybe we don't have a World Youth Day going on every week, but many parishes, particularly in the western US, have a large amount of people for whom English is not a first language. Why not use Latin there instead of an English Mass and Spanish Mass? Likewise for college campuses or when there is a visiting priest. I've often made this point to people in my congregation that Latin solves the "language barrier" rather than creating one.
Latin shouldn't be associated in church documents with "international gatherings": that's a sure-fire way to make Latin rare. Instead it needs to be reaffirmed as the proper language of the Roman rite, and the heritage of all Roman-rite Catholics. Bishops and priests should be urged to make Latin liturgy available on some regular basis (e.g., at least monthly), in every cathedral, and preferably in every city.
"This doesn't seem right - "occasional abuses"? Is that correctly translated, I wonder? Latin anyone?"
When I first read this passage myself, I "choked" and started coughing and started to laugh as this was and is a gross understatement!
After Father Z pointed out in his blog some irregularities with the english translation, comparing the Latin with several european languages, I thought I would compare the Latin version for the passage: "Occasional abuses" myself for fun.
The "official" Latin reads:
"Difficultates nonnullique cogniti etiam abusus — dictum est ..."
My rendering of the Latin:
The difficulties and even some known abuses having been said...
The "official" English rendering:
"The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted..."
And from the Italian (which as I understand - someone correct me if I am mistaken - is the original 'source' language:
"Le difficoltà ed anche taluni abusi rilevati..."
My rendering to English from the Italian above is:
The difficulties and also some abuses found...
In my opinion, since the Italian is the original, the english captures the mind of what was written accurately in this case.
If however, the Latin was the original language, then there would be some ambiguity, interestingly as Nonnullique (strip off the que - it's the conjunction 'and') can mean: some, few, several, or even considerable.
Most of us here would agree that "considerable" would be an accurate rendering of the reality of the abuses we all have observered.
Of course, it is all a moot point, but fun to pick apart nonetheless.
Moeste nuntio,
Mark
what needs to happen is for as many Latin-rite Catholics as possible to be aware of what goes on at the Litury in Eastern Catholic Churches (ie. the pure ones, not the Latnized ones).
It'll shake them out of their complacency and short-sightedness.
Everything Pope Benedict has proposed is good. It is another slap in the face for those who will not obey, be it a gentle one. Keep the gentle slaps coming, that might be the pastoral way.
I can understand why so many priests express pessimism. They have had their noses so close to the grindstone for so long that they know how bad, incorrigible things are. However, keep the faith, keep praying to Michael the Archangel to drive the "smoke of Satan" out of the Church. Any weakness on our part would be another aspect of the crisis in faith.
Fr. McAfee, I understand what you are saying.But this strikes me as a normal problem between theory and pastoral reality.
What if a priest studied marriage and family according to John Paul II's constant teaching on the subject. His ideal family, an idea that he would take into his parish and preach about and take as his paradigm for pastoral counseling, is the idea of love as "the gift of self." He would have the hope of passing on the beautiful possibility of self-gift to every married couple.
But he would have to also accept the fact that the families in his parish are not all saints (yet), most practice artificial birth control and thereby withhold an important part of the gift of the self (fertility), and there are pettiness and unwillingness to forgive and wife-beating and infidelity. You can correct and admonish and preach, but you can't fix things directly.
So yes, the priest is beleaguered on every side. Some fellow priests are going to smirk if they find out he preaches against birth control. Etc etc.
But in that case, as in the liturgy, there is no silver bullet, no Silver, no Lone Ranger coming from on high to fix things. People will heartily ignore Wojtyla/ JPII's 40 very public years of teaching on the subject. And yet--he made it plausible. For a generation of priests, now, and for generations to come, there is a theoretical framework that they can take as a platform.
Please don't think I'm unsympathetic. There's a parish near my house that had the Adoremus hymnal. It was great. Then a new pastor came in--and the Adoremus hymnal was gone, replaced by... Breaking Bread.
Hopefully there will be a law soon. But for now we have a theoretical framework, promulgated (not just written down in books). It's something pastors do.
Fr McAfee,
My comment is a response not just to words written here on the NLM blog but around the 'blogosphere' yesterday. I did not actually have your good self in mind when I commented on the disappointing and upsetting response of some (here on NLM and elsewhere), but your reply above indicates that you think otherwise.
Things are not rosier in a priory - we have equally fraught and fractious views on liturgy but we try to maintain a bond of charity above all else. So, I am aware of the difficulties in the 'trenches', and perhaps things are particularly divided in the USA, but one should not presume that my experience of liturgy etc is "rosier" or any less fraught, simply because my reaction is less polemical or impassioned.
I believe that the Pope has done well, serves us well and has good reason for what he does. I trust his judgment on the matter at hand. Some critics here and elsewhere seem not to trust him, vent their frustration at his perceived inactivity and mildness. I believe there is a reason for his mildness and pastoral gentleness. Surely this man knows the Roman Curia and the Church better than we ever could?
As such, I want to support him in his slow organic efforts to reform the Church and I have chosen to emphasise the positive elements of his exhortation and I will strive to ensure the Holy Father's recommendations and desires are known, understood and put into practice.
On the other hand, I see some who simply want to express bitter disappointment that Pope Benedict did not say what they wanted and expected to hear: I'm sorry but that's just petulance to me.
Please note, Father, that I am not saying you behave thus. How you choose to behave and act is in your decision and it is not for me to presume to call them into judgment.
As for your reference to our holy sister, St Catherine, note that she often calls the pope "Christ-on-earth". Is that "ultramontanism"?
She grieved for the sins of clerics and religious and indeed she spoke passionately. These were sins of "impurity, bloated pride and greed" and it were these that she grieved over and she chided cardinals etc because she feared that their sinful behaviour imperiled their eternal salvation.
This is surely not, I hope, the case with the document in question, nor with the perceived lack of strong direction on the part of Pope Benedict XVI.
Yes, she wrote to the pope herself and goaded him on to action etc and she did so because she believed that his failure to act justly and to use the power he possessed would endanger his soul. We are surely all free to do this, but to publicly express one's disappointment with the pope is something St Catherine herself does not do and indeed she rebukes cardinals and laity for doing so - she says that is a presumption that effectively persecutes the Church for the pope is 'Christ-on-earth'.
Thank you.
Fr McAfee,
My comment is a response not just to words written here on the NLM blog but around the 'blogosphere' yesterday. I did not actually have your good self in mind when I commented on the disappointing and upsetting response of some (here on NLM and elsewhere), but your reply above indicates that you think otherwise.
Things are not rosier in a priory - we have equally fraught and fractious views on liturgy but we try to maintain a bond of charity above all else. So, I am aware of the difficulties in the 'trenches', and perhaps things are particularly divided in the USA, but one should not presume that my experience of liturgy etc is "rosier" or any less fraught, simply because my reaction is less polemical or impassioned.
I believe that the Pope has done well, serves us well and has good reason for what he does. I trust his judgment on the matter at hand. Some critics here and elsewhere seem not to trust him, vent their frustration at his perceived inactivity and mildness. I believe there is a reason for his mildness and pastoral gentleness. Surely this man knows the Roman Curia and the Church better than we ever could?
As such, I want to support him in his slow organic efforts to reform the Church and I have chosen to emphasise the positive elements of his exhortation and I will strive to ensure the Holy Father's recommendations and desires are known, understood and put into practice.
On the other hand, I see some who simply want to express bitter disappointment that Pope Benedict did not say what they wanted and expected to hear: I'm sorry but that's just petulance to me.
Please note, Father, that I am not saying you behave thus. How you choose to behave and act is in your decision and it is not for me to presume to call them into judgment.
As for your reference to our holy sister, St Catherine, note that she often calls the pope "Christ-on-earth". Is that "ultramontanism"?
She grieved for the sins of clerics and religious and indeed she spoke passionately. These were sins of "impurity, bloated pride and greed" and it were these that she grieved over and she chided cardinals etc because she feared that their sinful behaviour imperiled their eternal salvation.
This is surely not, I hope, the case with the document in question, nor with the perceived lack of strong direction on the part of Pope Benedict XVI.
Yes, she wrote to the pope herself and goaded him on to action etc and she did so because she believed that his failure to act justly and to use the power he possessed would endanger his soul. We are surely all free to do this, but to publicly express one's disappointment with the pope is something St Catherine herself does not do and indeed she rebukes cardinals and laity for doing so - she says that is a presumption that effectively persecutes the Church for the pope is 'Christ-on-earth'.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify my position and I apologis
People seem to have a gross misunderstanding of the Pope. During his 20-odd years as head of CDF was he known as one who laid down the gauntlet? No. Was he known as one who was a hammer of heretics and meted out ecclesiastical punishment? No. So why would you expect him to do that now? All the documents in the world won't change things from a liturgical desert to a liturgical oasis overnight. The greatest thing he could do as a Pope would be to publicly celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass on occasion and celebrate the NO with greatest solemnity possible. The best thing he has done for the liturgy was neither his writings as Cardinal nor his liturgical document as Pope but the funeral Mass he celebrated for JP II.
IS there no priest on this blog who will answer my simple question. Is Cardinal Mahony or Archbishop Burke the happier fellow today with this documents publication? Tom
I agree that the message of Sacramentum Caritatis is that there will be no top-down reform of the reform early in the present pontificate. And surely this is a painful disappointment and bitter pill to swallow for anyone who knows (as all of us here do) the sad state of the liturgy in the Church.
But our disappointment must with the message (and its meaning), not with the messenger. Pope Benedict certainly wants the reform of the liturgy as much or more than anybody here, and he certainly knows the Church better than any of us. So we are disappointed with the meaning of his message -- that the faith of the Church at the present time simply is not sufficient to support an immediate reform of the normative liturgy. It's a bitter pill that he who knows the Church so well has been forced to this conclusion.
Cardinal Ratzinger has said plainly that the disintegration of the liturgy lead to the collapse of the faith. Evidently he sees it as necessary to travel back up the same road we've come down. Hence, the main emphasis of Sacramentum Caritatis on first restoring faith and belief in the Eucharist -- as an obvious preparation for later restoring the liturgy itself.
A final thought on which I may disagree with some here. I think this makes the motu proprio liberating the TLM more likely, not less likely. If the reform of the reform could be carried out immediately, making the liturgy fine for the 99% served by the Novus Ordo, one could ask why bother with a motu proprio for the 1%. But if not, and the TLM is sorely needed as a catalyst and model for the reform of the reform -- as Cardinal Ratzinger has said -- that makes the restoration of the TLM more important for the Church as a whole (rather than just for the 1% devoted to it).
Is Cardinal Mahony or Archbishop Burke the happier fellow today with this documents publication?
Tom: I'm not a priest, but I'd think Cardinal Mahony is quite happy today. After all, his "side" was able to forestall inclusion of the forthright steps that were assumed to be specified in the early drafts of the exhortation -- steps that I'd think Archbishop would have supported fully.
Just as I understand that Card. Mahony was quite happy with Redemptionis Sacramentum, as he appeared to be when he said it was a fine document, but one of little significance for Los Angeles, where (he said) the liturgy was already in fine shape, with any past liturgical abuse already having been corrected due to the persistent and successful efforts under his leadership to elevate their liturgy.
Henry, Cardinal Mahoney was not "happy" with RS. He in fact said that he would "grant an exception to it" for the foreseeable future. That said, it seems that many people are more concerned with Cardinal Mahoney (whose time is almost up) than with Pope Benedict.
CDB,
That's because, sadly, if you live in certain areas (and not just in LA), Mahoney has more influence over how Mass is offered than does BXVI.
A prelate noted for his non-compliance with liturgical norms "was quite happy with Redemptionis Sacramentum, as he appeared to be when he said it was a fine document, but one of little significance for Los Angeles, where (he said) the liturgy was already in fine shape"
This reminds me of numerous parallel situations in my past life as an actor.
After a rehearsal or a preview the cast and crew gather for notes from the director (and music director, stage manager, etc.)
A certain type of ineffectual director, who can't deal with confrontations always gives too many general notes - "that scene needs tightenting up," or "diction could be better."
The individual for whom the note is really meant ALWAYS thinks other actors may be at fault, (and may even say so,) but he himself is in "fine shape" and has no need to altar anything in his performance.
But there is another kind of director who gives the notes generally "in public" as it were, so as not to humiliate the actor (never a very effective way to get a good performance out of anyone,) but also deals with the specific problem in private.
The Holy Father is, one hopes, less interested in smacking people upsides the head to make them fall into line than in getting them to do what is right because they WANT to do what is right.
We have no way of knowing what other channels are being used, or in what way he intends to build on this (IMO extremely beautiful,) document.
Obviously we are not ready for any proclamation for a reform of the reform with people complaining. You have to have love first, and if he threw something out now what would happen?
The people complaining would change everything right away and we will be in the same mess.
I would agree that Cardinal Mahoney is the happier because now dissidents from his scandalous liturgies cannot wave SC in the air and say that the Pope says this about the mass.Of course the Cardinal is out of step with SC but he can avoid being checkmated by it because of its failure to use the language (not do's and dont's)of Spirit of the Liturgy.For example the Holy Father somewhat implies a warning and complaint about saturday vigil masses.If he was going to criticize them, why do it so indirectly and not take it head on as did Archbishop Ranjith in the Inside the Vaatican. However the document merits a second look from those of us who are somewhat critical because of the reactio to it on the left.One paper said it signalled the end of Vatican II.
Fr McAfee,
You are a great priest. I hope you are appointed pastor of St Timothy's in Chantilly one day.
I guess I'm out of the mainstream on this one. The document says affirmatively that seminarians should study Latin to celebrate Mass in that language. In contrast, it didn't say affirmatively that seminarians should become familiar with forms of liturgical dance so you can incorporate it into the liturgy. I guess that's why I would think Mahony should not be very happy. Tom
The document is out, now lets see how it plays out in the various dioceses, and parishes around the US and Canada--that will be most telling as to what direction things will be going. Many of us, only see and hear about situations at best, in our area of the diocese. Perhaps, Mr. Tribe can initiate some sort of nationwide survey--Is the 'reform of the reform' really taking off?--or just in very isolated spots? This might help all of us gain some perspective--which we really need at this point.
Tom,
I live here in LA and I must tell you, it's not a matter of Cardinal Mahony being happy or unhappy; SC will have absolutely no effect on him just as RS didn't. It won't even be a factor. A story to illustrate:
Someone earlier mentioned his public dismissal of RS, it's even worse than that. After RS came out, our parishes deacon was at a meeting when the document came out and a question asked about it. The Cardinal unequivocally said that he alone was in charge of liturgy in the archdiocese, not Rome, and if there were to be any changes, they would only come from the archdiocese. Of course, the deacon fully supports liturgical progressivism, so the story was definitely told with a smile.
Truefaith et al,
Just so I'm not all doom and gloom. There are a few bright spots here in LA. You can find good 'reform of the reform' parishes, but interestingly, they all mostly run (as far as I know) by religious orders, not diocesan priests. Don't get me wrong, we have some great diocesan priests. They just move very slowly and keep under the radar as to not attract too much attention.
Paul M--See thats just what I mean--you've highlighted some interesting information--in your 'neck of the woods', THERE is some good reform going on with the religious orders leading--thats something I wasn't aware of. It seems that some sort of 'survey' might really show the TRUE picture of whats happening nation wide. If we knew WHERE and WHO in our area is doing things 'right', it would be easier to attend those Masses, form alliances, strengthen and support good reform movements, etc. Right now, information is scattered and scanty, we need to pull together in a more cohesive way.
Truefaith,
The Oblates of the Virgin Mary have great parish here, and we now have a Latin Novus Ordo (the only one I'm aware of in LA) thanks to the Norbertines. The Norbertines also provide the only indult TLM in neighboring Orange County at San Juan Capistrano (where over 300 crowd into a chapel made for 150).
Those are the main two order I know of that give me a glimmer of hope here. I hope there are others, but I'm not aware of them.
One last thought--It may be time to take some very decisive and perhaps 'draconian' steps--like voting with your feet. There's wisdom in knowing when you simply can't change a situation--so leave, and find another parish. If I happen to visit a parish, and see some sort of 'silliness' going on--you can bet I won't go back there--nor will there be any financial support.
The bishops in my country "Kanada" haven't listened to the Pope since 1968.
Why on earth start now?
They have historically been the greatest enemies of Catholic Tradition in my land.
They will continue as liturgical lemmings on the same path, and until there are no more people willing to follow them over the cliff.
I think this is the right combox....
I want to take back my first reactions to the Exhortation, since my negative reaction to words like "could" was based on bad translation of the English rather than what the Holy Father apparently wrote.
I'm pleased with it and it is good for the Church. Now we need to get the translation fixed!
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
