![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
The Marini (I) Gambit
This is from the fine site of the New Liturgical Movement.
You will recall that over 500 people in the Archdiocese of Milan signed a request for the older form of Mass. Card. Tettamanzi, who was one of the preeminent papabili in 2005, has not been warm to the idea of Summorum Pontificum.
My emphases.
Saturday, January 12, 2008 The Milanese faithful ask…the Archbishop answers posted by Nicola De Grandi
As many NLM readers may know, a petition with 500 signatures was handed over at the end of December to ask once more the Archbishop of Milan Dionigi Card. Tettamenzi, to allow every Ambrosian priest to celebrate the Extraordinary form of the Milanese Rite, according to "Summorum Pontificum" provisions.
During a Mass celebrated in the Cathedral for the Feast of the Epiphany of Our Lord, the Archbishop and his all-powerful Vicar for the Evangelization and Archpriest of the Metropolitan Cathedral, Msgr. Luigi Manganini, gave their answer to the desolate Milanese flock:
Former Head of the State, life Senator and avowed Catholic Francesco Cossiga sharply criticized Card. Tettamanzi’s rebellion to the Papal authority and lack of tolerance towards the legitimate requests from the faithful to liberalize the Traditional Ambrosian Rite, in opposition to the total support given to such horrors in the Cathedral, and asked whether the next step will be a belly dance show to celebrate the Christian-Muslim dialogue. He ironically concluded "just think he could even be elected Pope!"
The Milanese Curia angrily replied that this kind of dances have been common for years in St. Peter’s Basilica... Maybe curial spokesmen were not informed of the radical change in Papal Ceremonies after Msgr. Guido Marini replaced his ill-famed predecessor!
The Milanese faithful can only long Card. Tettamanzi’s 75th birthday next year.
Is this not a classic instance of how scandal works?
The former papal MC, Piero Marini (or Marini I), perpetrated all manner of antics in papal liturgies. These antics then become models and justifications for antics elsewhere.
You have to wonder just what it takes for papal or curial intervention.
Comment by Roman Sacristan — 12 January 2008 @ 10:31 amThis act of Card. Tettamenzi tends to lean to the description “slap in the face” of the faithful of Milan who just want the older form of the Ambrosian rite. So much for “empowering the laity.”
St Charles Borromeo would have a heart attack if he saw that.
Comment by SMJ — 12 January 2008 @ 10:37 amGlorious will be the day when the Holy Father shall have come down like a tonne of bricks upon Msgr. Tettamanzi, the Milanese Curia, the Bologna School, inter et alia.
Comment by Vincent Uher — 12 January 2008 @ 10:52 amWhatever about the extraordinary form of the Ambrosian Rite (good for them!), I’d like to know something just a little different, which I think I remember someone making a comment about a while back.
Is it true that with the promulgation of the Pius V Missale Romanum that any priest of any rite, including the Ambrosian Rite, could use the Roman Rite even though those of the Roman Rite had no permission to use any other rite? Also, would this right to use the Roman Rite by any priest of any rite outside of the Roman Rite apply today only to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite?
I know that MANY prists in Milan use the Novus Ordo Roman Rite (Eucharisitic Prayer II), as do many priests of whatever rite. I don’t think they are all bi-ritual, but I’m not sure if permissions/prohibitions only work one way.
Comment by Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — 12 January 2008 @ 10:53 amThe dancers seem to be screaming out:
“Look at us, only us! We want the attention you should give to the Lord. So look at US!”
How very liturgical.
This is the greatness of ad orientem: Let’s look to the Lord, all of us, together, to the Lord!
Comment by Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — 12 January 2008 @ 11:18 amThe Ambrosian rite is astonishingly beautiful sans the syncrenistic hinduesque dancers and horizontal-prayer-meeting feel of the “catholics” who so often offer us stage productions instead of the Eternal Sacrifice:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FQ9J4sAF-Ds
Comment by Malta — 12 January 2008 @ 11:22 amHey, at least they choose modest lirutgical dancers, right? I mean it seems like the Cardinal was pretty traditional in only allowing them to show their mid-riffs? What else can you rad-trads want? geez…
Comment by Andrew — 12 January 2008 @ 11:46 amI am reminded that a light bulb burns brightest before it burns out.
Liturgical progressivism may behave in the same way…
Ultimately, the dim bulbs at the top who do not get that there time has passed will attempt in dramatic ways to assert their independence from the rightful intervention of the Pope, the Patriarch of the West. But the fact is that one day, like all burned out bulbs, they will be replaced and end up in a dusty box.
In ICXC,
Gordo the Byzantine
Comment by Gordo the Byzantine — 12 January 2008 @ 11:59 amGratitude to you Fr. Z for bringing this travesty forward so that truth may be revealed to thousands. It is deeply important that a “liturgy” such as this be exposed for what it is: a sacrilege. Let us work and pray to bring back the Mass of St. Pius V so that all might worship and respect Him.
Comment by spera — 12 January 2008 @ 12:41 pmI’m very surprised. Back during “Papal April 2005” the media was reporting that Cardinal Tettamenzi was “conservative” and a “supporter” of Opus Dei. I would have expected better of his liturgies if that were true.
Comment by Geoffrey — 12 January 2008 @ 1:21 pmGordo said:I am reminded that a light bulb burns brightest before it burns out.
Liturgical progressivism may behave in the same way…
How true that is. A little story to illustrate:
We had our pastor over for dinner just after Christmas to open further the lines of communication (part of Fr. Z’s Rule #4). An extremely nice man, but it seems a liturgical progressive in the Mahony mold. At some point in the discussion on the Mass, my wife expressed support for Cardinal Arinze for issuing Redemptionis Sacramentum. Our pastor immediately took issue and he took the good Cardinal to task for allowing liturgical dancing in Africa, but not in the US. He went on to extol the beauty of liturgical dancing and offered, “I think we’ll be ready to introduce that next year (meaning 2008). I literally choked on my food as my wife sat stunned. He then remarked who he was surprise we were such “conservatives.” I said only in the sense that we wanted to preserve the traditions of the Church to pass on to our 3 sons. It went on from there, but you get the general bask-and-forth.
I truly hope this is the last stand of progressivism and I know it will be pesky to eradicate. May God bless the Holy Father and his efforts.
Comment by Paul Murnane — 12 January 2008 @ 1:45 pm“the media was reporting that Cardinal Tettamenzi was “conservative” and a “supporter” of Opus Dei. I would have expected better of his liturgies if that were true.”
There tends to be quite a difference between a “conservative” Catholic and a “traditional” Catholic.
In fact, most conservatives are fiercely opposed to the traditional Latin Mass. An interesting dynamic.
Comment by Deborah — 12 January 2008 @ 3:01 pm“the media was reporting that Cardinal Tettamenzi was “conservative” and a “supporter” of Opus Dei. I would have expected better of his liturgies if that were true.”
There tends to be quite a difference between a “conservative” Catholic and a “traditional” Catholic.
In fact, most conservatives are fiercely opposed to the traditional Latin Mass. An interesting dynamic.
Comment by Deborah — 12 January 2008 @ 3:04 pm“St Charles Borromeo would have a heart attack if he saw that.”—Comment by SMJ.
No, I am sure he is quite eager to rise from his tomb and give Tettamanzi a heart attack :)
Comment by Theodorus — 12 January 2008 @ 3:32 pmGeoffrey wrote: “the media was reporting that Cardinal Tettamenzi was “conservative” and a “supporter” of Opus Dei. I would have expected better of his liturgies if that were true.”
Deborah replied: “There tends to be quite a difference between a “conservative” Catholic and a “traditional” Catholic. In fact, most conservatives are fiercely opposed to the traditional Latin Mass. An interesting dynamic.”
I agree with Deborah. A great many conservative Catholics have, for decades, opposed “Traditional” Catholics. Catholics who held fast to the Traditional Latin Mass were often viewed by conservatives as “schismatics.”
I have asked conservative priests in Dallas to offer the TLM. Each conservative priest has refused to do so.
They won’t even incorporate a bit of Latin into the Novus Ordo Mass.
Go to virtually any “conservative” parish and one will encounter practically the same liturgical experience that one finds at “liberal” parishes…Protestant meeting hall appearance, vernacular Mass, Communion in the hand, altar girls, piano players…
Consider the following: Conservative Catholics insisted for years that Rome had stocked the Church with conservative bishops.
Seminaries for years were filled supposedly with “conservative” men who fanned through the Church, having established (supposedly) “conservatism” at one parish after another.
Now, consider the state of the Church; the state of Catholic liturgy.
Enough said regarding “conservative” Catholicism.
Comment by Tom — 12 January 2008 @ 3:36 pmI have actually found that true liberal Catholics who have the “anything goes” leaning are more friendly and helpful toward the TLM.
The true liberals usually don’t refuse any request especially if you can show that the Church allows it. We have had much sympathy and assistance to set up the TLM from the liberals in my diocese moreso than from the conservatives. The progressivists of course have a strong hatred toward anything traditional, the TLM particularly, and anything that stifles their creativity.
The categories are not a perfect science, however it is helpful to realize a person’s basic first principles and where they stand on certain issues. A good strategy can be ruined if the wrong people are approached. Why not figure out who your allies are first?
Comment by Deborah — 12 January 2008 @ 4:11 pmWasn’t it Cardinal Tettamanzi who got Guido Marini into the MC business?
Comment by Louis E. — 12 January 2008 @ 4:32 pmFr Renzo di Lorenzo:
I believe what you said is true only for priests in the Latin Church. The Latin Church includes particular churches of the (e.g.) Roman, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic rites, and others. It does not include, e.g., the Byzantine, Maronite, Chaldean, Coptic, nor Ethiopic rites. So any Latin-church priest may use the Roman rite, but a Byzantine-church priest, for instance, must be bi-ritual to use the Roman rite.
Comment by Rob F. — 12 January 2008 @ 7:10 pmThanks, Rob F.
But, does this mean, taking the argument one step further, that those in Milan (should they so desire) may ask for the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and that they will have to be provided with it, that is, unless 500 people does not yet constitute a group in the eyes of the Archbishop (as if that decision would be up to him)?
Comment by Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — 13 January 2008 @ 1:34 amThe Ambrosian Rite is normative in Milan. Ambrosian Rite priests cannot celebrate in the Roman Rite if not outside the Diocese, and the Archbishop is the Chief of the Ambrosian Rite.
Card. Tettamanzi – through is Vicar Manganini – is using this a pretext to declare that the Motu Proprio doesn’t apply to the Ambrosian Rite, and preventing priests wishing to celebrate according to the classic form to be able to do so under threat of severe punishment.
The saddest thing is that this decision is more and more often seen as a legitimate opposition against Papal authority by some “progressive” priests who suggest to “pray for the Pope, but do what the Archbishop say”, which is very close to an openly schismatic, gallican mentality…
Comment by Nicola - Ambrosianus — 13 January 2008 @ 8:56 amLogically if the cardinal believes that the motu proprio holds no power in Milan then surely neither would Sacrosanctum Concilium or indeed VII as a whole be enforceable or applicable within the territory?
Comment by Diffal — 13 January 2008 @ 9:21 amtherefore allowing, even encouraging the Traditional Ambrosian Rite unhindered?
And, there we have it: non-ad-orientem leads to schism.
Why? Because when one screams, “Look at me; look at me! Not the Lord!, this marauding tyranny of individualism creates the structure of the schism that is just looking for an opportunity.
Comment by Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — 13 January 2008 @ 9:22 amFear not!
Time passes and birthdays come around. The grave awaits all of us and we shall ALL face our final inspection. So shall the Cardinal Don’t be too hard on him. God is the only one who can REALLY be hard on him and do his sins justice…
Remember! We must all die! Be careful….
bjr
Comment by Barbara Rickman — 13 January 2008 @ 11:47 amFear not!
True love casts out all fear, that’s true, but… fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
We must all fear to offend the Lord, and coming to know more clearly what is offensive is useful. At the same time, while being careful, we pray for all concerned, knowing that we, all of us, by our sins, are responsible for the crucifixion of the Lord. Hail Mary…
Comment by Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — 13 January 2008 @ 12:04 pm“The Milanese Curia angrily replied that this kind of dances have been common for years in St. Peter’s Basilica…”
This is exactly why the pope’s liturgy must be a model for all others. So many illicit practices are justified because of what people claim to have seen in Rome. Our Catholic forefathers knew that faith is best passed on in what we “see” rather than what we “read,” and that is why the rejection of traditional practices by the false Spirit of the last ecumenical Concil caused so many problems. False prophets called for the end of meatless Fridays, rjected devotions such as the rosary, and encouraged novelty in the liturgy. The written word described what was corect, but few cared. But, conversely, others though they could solve the problem with more written documents, hence the useless General Instruction of the Roman Missal. How many parishes take it seriously?
Comment by Fr. D. — 13 January 2008 @ 2:46 pmBut, thank God for pope Benedict! He knows the power of vision in creating an impression and teaching. He will set the example of good liturgy. Only after his exmaple becomes common knowledge will liturgical documents against dancing etc have any weight.
I recall that in the run-up to the last Conclave, Cdl. Tettamanzi was frequently mentioned as one of the front-runner papabili. Having followed his ‘career’ for some time I didn’t buy that. It was said that some of his ‘antics’ were done to appear like one of his predecessors – Pope John XXIII. But Papa Giovanni he was not and, it would appear, Pope Benedict he’s not either…
Comment by GOR — 13 January 2008 @ 3:34 pmCould some kind soul please provide me with a definition of “conservative” and “traditionalist” as they are used in the above postings? Thanks. Kim
Comment by kdpfam — 13 January 2008 @ 8:09 pmHi Kim,
This link was either posted by a commentor in this thread or another one – it is a good article which compares the basic foundational principles of conservative vs. traditional Catholics. It is pretty much spot on, in my opinion.
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html
Comment by Deborah — 13 January 2008 @ 8:43 pmPhoto 1:
Comment by eft — 13 January 2008 @ 8:50 pmWhat is the priest doing?
Photo 3:
The akimbo and tah-dah postures make sense,
but how do the santa-hats fit in?
Well, if anything, I have an idea where H.E. Roger Cardinal Mahony’s next assignment might be…
-J.
Comment by joe — 13 January 2008 @ 10:28 pmLooks exactly like WREC here in Los Angeles, lol.
The arrogance of the curia, will not much be liked by God. :)
Comment by Joe — 13 January 2008 @ 10:30 pmWhat, was John Paul II just puddy in the hands of Marini I? Puhleaze. If you can’t point to the source, you’re only going to get more of the same.
Comment by Stephen — 14 January 2008 @ 6:17 pmStephen said: “What, was John Paul II just puddy in the hands of Marini I? Puhleaze. If you can’t point to the source, you’re only going to get more of the same.”
“Marini I” himself stated that John Paul the Great was “not a liturgist” like Pope Benedict XVI, and that JPII entrusted all things liturgical to Marini I, whereas everything Marini I did was always run past BXVI first, which is interesting considering how much BXVI allowed until Marini II came along.
Comment by Geoffrey — 14 January 2008 @ 6:32 pmI have read that a certain Cardinal Wojtyla was appointed to the Congregation of Rites in the early 1970’s. That is all I know as the source (Bugnini actuall) did not go into any detail. I have long been curious about the specific involvement of Cardinal Wojtyla in that crucial phase of the liturgical reform.
Comment by jack burton — 14 January 2008 @ 6:46 pm