Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
I had hoped for a heavier hand in the abuse arena. I do welcome the section on Gregorian chant and Latin. Let's hope this opens the door to something more.
Pretty much what I expected. After all this is a summary of the Bishops' Synod and we know the state of most our bishops. After the synod the bishops submit their summaries to the Pope and then he basis the document on those summaries. Therefore, taking that into consideration, it is better than what most of our bishops would come up with.
I still have complete faith in Pope Benedict XVI to come through for us. He is a very reserved and strategic man.
Also, it would be curious to have a look at the original latin text to confirm the proper translation of sections which we may consider ambiguous. In the past it has been noted that the english translator can be a little "creative".
Shawn, I think your analysis of this as a "first step" is precisely correct.
I would add that in addition to your sevenfold list, the Theologian Pope reorders the theological framework for the liturgy, especially by emphasizing the Person of Christ and His living, present-day saving action in the Mass.
Pretty much as I expected, although I do admit that the ambiguity throughout most of the points on the Liturgy is disappointing.
It is certainly a step forward in genuine Liturgical reform, however I doubt that this Exhortation alone will make much of an impact on the Church. I fear it will go largely unnoticed.
Other then that, the Eucharistic theology expressed here is excellent. The Holy Father does much to clearly affirm that the Eucharist is at the center of Catholicism and the primary work of the Church.
First step? Then what were Ecclesia de Eucharistia and Liturgiam Authenticam and Redemptionis Sacramentum?
How many first steps do we need? And, 17 months for this?
How this can be seen as anything other than a major disappointment is beyond me. This is a retreat from Spirit of the Liturgy, not to mention his Gamber preface.
In theological terms it is very strong.
People who want legislative hammers to fall will be disappointed. But legislative hammers are not the only ecclesial tools. First, we have theology.
I am somewhat surprised that so many people are heavily criticial of this document. Did they perhaps project onto this exhortation the same expectations of the Motu Proprio? I suggest we read this in caritas, seeing it as a necessary step for further definitions and applications, including the Motu Proprio. Further, while it seems likely that many bishops will ignore this document for its more "traditional" propositions, there will also be bishops who will impliment it with faithfulness.
While I can sympathize with those who see this as a major disappointment for its supposed lack of teeth, its apparent openness to liberal theology, and so-said failure to effect anything of real value, let us not forget that the Holy Father acts with the grace of office and the guidance of the HolY Spirit. The wait is indeed long, especially when our expectations have been so energized lately with the talk of the MP; but all in due time, brothers!
In Nomine Christi
Anthony, where is the "openness to liberal theology"????
Personally I don't think there actually IS any openness to liberal theology. My purpose in writing that is that some people have posted that the Holy Father is open to liberalism. I suppose that they understand that anything which does not equal ad orientem, mandated Latin now, and so forth may be considered libeal.
Actually, this is no worse than what the "Reform of the Deform" crowd deserves. Enjoy.
I only hope that those of us who want the deform scrapped and hope for a true renewal of the classical form of the Roman Rite get our Motu Proprio. We can move forward on two tracks and we'll see were they lead. I hope the latter track is made more available for those of us who are tired of the same toothless document over and over.
Perhaps we could turn our frustration into action. After all, most of the things we were hoping for in this exhortation are already permissible to act on. If we wait around for the dissenters to feel some kind of guilt of conscience and change things then I'm afraid we'll die of old age first. They are too deformed.
There really are two parallel Churches right now within the Roman Catholic Church. One is the true Catholic Church, Christ's Church, and the other is the fraudulent reproduction which will eventually die, harming many souls in the meantime.
It's time to separate from the goats and begin building rather than complaining. We can build up the good, orthodox, reform of the reform parishes which have faithful priests and parishioners, build up the Indult Masses, the FSSP, the Institute of the Good Shepherd. We can then invite others to our parishes.
And then once we have a house which is tidy we can then work on the mission which Christ has called all of his disciples to...evangelization..to work for the salvation of souls both inside the Church and outside.
Gee, Boko, are you questioning the validity of the current Rite?
boko
Reform of the Deform crowd
Hey, I resemble that remark! And I have to ask: if something's been de-formed, isn't it good to re-form it? Christ didn't look at the lost sheep and say, "Eh, it's crippled. Let it die."
And we're talking more than one lost sheep! More like 99 out of 100. So I'm heartened by this exhortation, find it preparatory to a (coming) profoundly serious defense of the elder Missal, and see it as re-orienting discussion of liturgy into a much more sensible and organic direction.
Like all huge vessels, the Catholic ship turns slowly. This document turns the rudder a few more degrees and gives us "reform of the deform" types more wind in our sails.
In addition to my last post I would like to add (before anyone accuses me of seeking perfectionism) that of course even the best parishes aren't perfect but we can do our best to work towards perfection always knowing that we are imperfect.
Boko,
You're thinking a bit linear when we're talking about first steps. What you mentioned are also part of first steps.
First steps relates to the present celebration, ethos, etc. of the 1970 missal as-is. i.e. cleaning up abuses, re-instilling chant and Latin, and most significant from the English speaking perspective, re-translating the Missal from the Latin typical edition.
No. I'm not questioning the validity of the current rite. I think it's an impoverishment compared to the classical rite. That's an intellectually and theologically defensible position. Conflating my position with the questioning of the validity of the current rite is not intellectually defensible.
I take issue with Deborah's second paragraph. We have two rites, not two churches. And I don't know that I would call the new rite "fraudulent," but it has its origins in fraud, certainly. I don't know how anyone cannot but be embarrassed by the fact that Bugnini was, to a large extent, the author of the rite by which so many worship today.
Also, regarding this document as a beautiful meditation, I'd ask: A beautiful meditation on what? On an unavailable (to so many of us) Mass? Pray the Mass, don't pray the nonexistent ideal of the Mass described in documents but unavailable at a parish near you. So we need our betters to offer better the Mass, not to offer better documents. That said, i wish this were a better document.
As a practical step, Catholics would do well to take the occasion of this publication to write to their bishops and ask sharply pointed questions, such as "Will you financially support the creation of diocesan tutorials in sacred chant?"
Boko,
I'm not referencing rites within the Church. What I mean is we essentially have two totally different theologies, ecclesiologies, etc. existing within the Church. We see this play out in the Sacred Liturgy as well as catechesis in our schools and parishes. One is an obvious organic continuity of Catholic Traditions and the other, fraudulent, is one of rupture. There are alot of writings on this matter.
Statements made recently by Cardinal Biffi during the Lenten retreat for the Curia also reflect this reality.
I completely agree with your last post, Deborah. "Two Churches" is problematic. "There can be only one." But two ecclesiologies (one defective) prevalent within the one Church? You are absolutely right.
Boko,
You need to consider that such documents are meant to help spur on proper approaches to liturgical reform.
"First steps..."
I am afraid that those who are waiting for the Holy Father to order an immediate burning at the stake of liturgical abusers and implement a sweeping overnight reform are doomed to disappointment. This would hardly be in line with the principle of organic development which has been stressed repeatedly by the Holy Father.
There is much in this document that can be implemented immediately by pastors and musicians in their own parishes with no further permission required from the local bishop. The reform is accomplished by people, not by paper.
Shawn,
This isn't even a first step. It's still laying the foundation. Which is crucial, but if EE and RS and LA didn't do it, someone should mention that. When will we begin to build?
(I'll also mention that I think this is a step back, a retreat, from Spirit of the Liturgy and the Gamber preface.)
The real work is happening, but it ain't happening with this exhortation, or with any of the recent papal writings. Many seminarians, some priests, and a few bishops are moving forward. And the rest are getting older, so I guess each contributes in his own way.
Boko,
Also I should note as to not cause scandal for anyone in regards my lasts 2 posts:
The fraudulent theologies, ecclesiologies, etc. existing within the Church are not approved by the Magisterium, they come from dissenters who give the impression, explicitly/implicitly, that they are from the Magisterium. Thereby deceiving many of the faithful. For example, one may think that because Mahoney is Cardinal that everything he does, says and writes liturgically is approved by the Church - it is not. In fact, much of his stuff is contrary to the Church's teachings.
It's easy to criticize. It's easy to build a thick wall, stand behind it, and launch rocks. Even easier is to do so after we've created our own paradigm through which we analyze how WE think the Church should act. But we are called to serve the Church, not ourselves. And if a traditionalist, so-called, is a true traditionalist, that would be the beginning and end of this analysis and all griping, as seen on this board, would cease.
Some of the comments here reveal one thing: no matter what the Church says or does, even when it issues the MP, there will be some who'll remain unsatisfied and have the gall to claim they somehow represent "true" Catholicism. Beyond themselves, that serves no one, least of all our Church. So, I'd humbly suggest to my fellow Catholics here, that we defer to our Holy Father on this, and have the courage roll up our sleeves, come out from hiding behind that wall, and get to work.
The passage on Gregorian Chant is hard to ignore. It is the "Chant proper to the Roman liturgy"!
Paragraphs 42 and 62 are most impressive!
Take Sacramantum Caritatis for what it is. It is not the motu proprio. This is a published work assuring all of us that the synod, as a whole, has its finger on the pulse of the current state of the liturgy. This should instill confidence in all of us that the motu proprio will - whether it is in line with any one person's (or one movement's) agenda - will be a step forward, propelled by the Holy Spirit Himself.
Heartening comments from those who say that it's time to roll up our sleeves. We must do that or fall into irascible bitterness, which is hardly a Christian attitude (and remember we shall be judged on our actions one day).
Some suggestions:
-Learn Gregorian chant and form/join a schola.
-Volunteer to help catechise candidates and catechumens and help counteract the watered-down Catholicisn that is rife in the RCIA.
-Write to your bishop and ask that he ensures that the Masses in his diocese are in line with the recommendations in this new document.
David:
Thank you for the practical suggestions...necessary for people like ME who can only think in the abstract! :) All recommendations are excellent.
AMDG.
I don't think I can overemphasise the fact that if this is the age of the laity then we as laity need to do something. Let's not be sidetracked into just focusing on the liturgy - the whole of the Catholic faith has been under some degree of attack these last 40 years. We need to make the effort to do something about it rather than turn into armchair popes!
At first glance, it appears that the document will give support to those bishops and pastors already sympathetic to liturgical reform and will be ignored by those who are not. Again it comes down to episcopal appointments. I pray that this will be a positive for those in other dioceses.
I am under no illusions that a single item will be taken seriously in my archdioceses (Los Angeles). Redemptionis Sacramentum was completely ignored and it was prescriptive. This documents "exhorts" but since everything is "perfect" here, nothing will change.
Deborah, your point about "parallel Churches" is very close to describing the situation here in LA. We seem to be inexorably moving in that direction. I just hope we don't get there in the next 3 years, 351 days.
Let's not be sidetracked into just focusing on the liturgy
Focusing on the Sacred Liturgy is not being "sidetracked" although this is a common erroneous thought. No one says it better than the Holy Father himself as Cardinal Ratzinger:
"What we previously knew only in theory has become for us a practical experience: the Church stands and falls with the Liturgy....the true celebration of the Sacred Liturgy is the centre of any renewal of the Church whatever." Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Ephrem: "But legislative hammers are not the only ecclesial tools. First, we have theology."
We already have the theology! Where are the hammers? Where is the Schedule of Songs Perpetually Suppressed for Liturgical Use? Where is the Decree for the Suppression of the Religious Education Congress in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles?
I'm banging my head against a wall for a few hours tonight. It will be less painful than this document.
Paul M - What about 3 years and 351 days?
I keep saying it, but here goes...
As a pastor, I can tell you that my efforts to improve things are greatly helped by parishioners who speak up and get involved. My two parishes have taken baby steps, and there are folks who are very upset by "all this Latin" (one prayer at a time; the Agnus Dei for awhile, now the Sanctus). This letter from the holy father, while not stated in the most emphatic terms, nonetheless strengthens me. Here I can cite the current pope and say,
"This is what we are doing; this is what he wants. Shall we follow the successor of Peter?"
In addition, I am going to arrange for some arrangement to read and study this document in my two parishes. Everyone won't get on board, but I will do what I can. God willing, I will enjoy the support of my bishop, and other priests will be similarly inspired.
Now would be a good time, PIPs (people in the pews) to speak up respectfully, and to step forward, and help: "I'll lead a Gregorian choir, Father"...
David,
The liturgy is central and a wheel from which many other spokes come forth. This is why it has been called a summit and source; it is the primary point of contact for the Faith for the majority of people.
It really isn't possible to over-emphasize the liturgy if we are speaking of that properly.
Shawn of Wichita,
That's how long until Cardinal Mahony's 75th birthday.
Fr. Fox,
I do hope the AE helps you in your efforts at both your parishes. For priests such as yourself, I think the AE will be a great help. I pray for your success.
Maybe he lies about his age... WE WISH!
The only thing I found a bit strange was that line about "occasional abuses". Occasional? Huh...
But the rest was great! I hope the tide keeps turning. Benedicat Deus Papam nostrum, Benedictum XVI.
Valete!
I think the crowd which basically says "I stand with the Holy Father, right or wrong", on this or any issue are a bit fanatical.
They can not see the serious missed opportunities to restore the Faith, or the errors in judgement or confidence placed in people that this Pope suffers from.
He is not really the "Panzer Cardinal" that some reviled and the rest of us cheered, he is rather a wimpish figure, overly cautious and timid. Afraid to confront error, afraid to lead , terrified of the consequences.
And we expect a "Motu Proprio" form Him?
I don't think so. I'd be trhilled if I'm wrong....but I don't think so.
Ken:
Respectfully: So let's all run, hide, whine, and presume to know the better answer to these matters than our Holy Father? Sorry. That's cowardice. Dwelling on any perceived "missed opportunities" gets us nowhere.
Commenting by HaloScan
