![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
L’OssRom: revealing interview with H.E. Piero Marini (former MC)
This entry may be updated from time to time. Please check back often!
o{]:¬)
In today’s L’Osservatore Romano there is an interview with the former papal MC, H.E. Archbp. Piero Marini, now head of the office for Eucharistic Congresses. In interview begins with comments about the upcoming Congress to be held in Quebec. However, it also delves into the question of these huge outdoor Masses, the implementation of the post-Conciliar reform, and Summorum Pontificum.
Here are some excerpts form His Excellency’s comments in my rapid translation. I will add to this as time allows. (Sometimes I wish this were a group blog…)
My emphases and comments in what follows.
Q: Today it seems there has returned to present interest the debate on the liturgical reform sparked by the Council. How do you judge the progress made in the last 40 years?
MARINI: I followed, starting from the period of Vatican II, the implementation of the liturgical reform for some 22 years, first in the Consilium ad exsequendam constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia [On this see the recent kiss-and-tell book that came out under Marini’s name.] and then in the Congregation for Divine Worship. After that, for more than 20 yeas I was able to celebrate the liturgy desired by the council [Grrr… this is a problem phrase…. pay attention to how Marini uses it. We must be on guard against phrases like this and not leaven them unchallenged.] in more than 100 countries, on the occasion of the journeys of Papa Wojtyla. And so I organized with local experts numberless celebrations of the Eucharist, of the Liturgy of the Hours, of the Word of God, of sacraments, ecumenical celebrations in many languages and cultures. [He has first established his credentials to be able to speak on this… Now watch the sweeping statements.] Everywhere, the liturgy desired by the Council was celebrated with lively participation and enthusiasm. [When the Pope shows up, what do you expect?] Everyone perceived the liturgy as belonging to the local Church and, at the same time, as an expression of the universal Church. [The real point here is Marini’s emphasis on the local Church. This is his true love: liturgy which is inculturate. This comes out again and again in that book and this interview.] The celebrational practice confirmed that the liturgical reform was necessary because it was based on profound theological principles and was of perennial validity. [See how circular that was? It was necessary because we did it?] For this reason it is an irreversible journey. [This is a shot at Benedict XVI and Summorum Pontificum and at the present papal MC Msgr. Guido Marini, who is restoring traditional things to papal liturgies.] The Council Fathers and the Roman Pontiff in Sacrosanctum Concilium, making their own the words of Pius XII, defined the renewal of the liturgy as a passage of the Holy Spirit in the Church. [Marini has just invoked the Holy Spirit as a way to justify his ideals] The meaning of this affirmation thus forms a part of the fabric of daily ecclesial faith. The celebration of the liturgy, therefore, cannot be separated form the life of the Church. And the Church which lives – I am citing Paul VI - is the Church of today, not the Church of yesterday or or tomorrow. [This is a good example of how men like Archbp. Marini and some others such as Bp. Trautman, are so focused on the present moment of the Church that they create a de facto rupture with the past and present. Their starting point of the "present" would logically require contant changes in liturgical practice and innumerable adaptions for local communities.]
And this was the reason for which the Council occupied itself especially [?] with the liturgy. For the Council the renewal of the Church, ecumensim and missionary action depended on the way in which the liturgy is lived. [Yes… but you see… the men of the Consilium had long-reaching motives that were really theological and ecclesiological and the liturgy was the key to implementing them. The book under Marini’s name describes this in no uncertain terms: they wanted to reshape the Church. They went far far beyong the mandate given them by the Council. That is why when Marini uses the phrase "the liturgy desired by the Council" we must all instantly and firmly reject the premise. The liturgy we got after the Council was absolutely NOT the liturgy desired by the Council! The Council mandated a few points for reform. The Consilium went way beyond the mandate for ideological reasons and they used the Council as the blunt instrument to impose their will, as the Marini book documents.]
But to celebrate the liturgy desired by the Council, as Papa Montini affirmed, is not an easy thing, as it is not easy to live the life of the Church. [You know… I always get nervous when I hear people talk about how hard and complicated it is to celebrate Mass or simply to be Catholic. That strikes me as an excuse not to be faithful to the Church’s teachings and obey the rubrics.] Rather, celebrating the liturgy of the Council is difficult and delicate. There is need for directed and methodical interest, it requires patience, perseverence, personal and loving dedication and great pastoral charity. ["Such as I, with great personal sacrifice, – sigh – have exemplified so humbly all these years."] This is all necessary, however, if we desire that the life of the Church be renewed and all feel themselves called to salvation. [Dramatic!] Pastoral liturgy is a task which is ever enduring. ["Pastoral" liturgy…. what the heck is that, anyway? Liturgy which doesn’t have to celebrated according to the book?]
Let us allow ourselves, therefore, to be guided by the Holy Spirit who inspired the liturgical movement, Paul VI, and the Council Fathers and let us continue to carry forward with renewed dedication and ethusiasm pastoral liturgy in our ecclesial communities.
Q: Many have interpreted Summorum Pontificum as a "speed bump" (battuta d’arresto) in this journey of implementation. What notion has come from this matter?
The text of the Motu Proprio must be read in the context in which the Pope situated it. [Here it comes. Watch how he invokes context and then ignores the way the Pontiff contextualized it.] "Today", Benedict XVI says in the accompanying letter addressed to bishops, "his glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew." [Yah… he also spoke of how there are problems with the way the liturgy is treated and about how young people are drawn to the older forms. But for Marini, the MP has to be reduced to a handful of dirt thrown to those who are not in unity with the Church. It can’t be for people who simply want the older form, because that would mean that there was a check on the "Church of this present moment" style liturgy which is his ideal, because he wants a decentralized power-based in the Church. Watch how he talks about the Pope…] For us Catholics the Pope is the visible sign of unity in the Church, and he is Bishop of the Church of Rome called to preside over all the other Churchs in charity. The Pope was called by the Lord to exercise the Petrine ministry, and thus to make every effort that the net of the Church remain whole. And so he has the right and duty to see to the unity of the Church. Who can deny this duty and obligation? It is precisely the liturgy, for the one who lives authentically, that is the school which forms the true sense of the Church in respect to the different tasks and ministries and in obedience to the one who presides. [This way of talking, while correct, is part and parcel of the ecclesiology of those who see the Pope as a kind of primus inter pares and the Church of Rome as a mere reference point, whereas local Churches are really fully their own Churches with their own bishop as their point of reference – all true of course – but in such as way as to diminish the actual authority of the Pope and the Curia in those local Churches.]
Finally, it is necessary to remember that the Motu Proprio does not intend to introduce modifications in the present Roman Missal [GREAT! I love this. What the real fear of the Marini-types is that the older form of Mass may come back to exert a check on the great progress of inculturation etc etc going on. They are afraid of the gravitational pull which is already taking place. They see the reintroduction of a sure point of liturgical reference rooted in greater structure, more directive rubrics, a tradition of many centuries as the ultimate threat. They cannot stand the idea that the older form might influence the newer form.] nor to express a negative judgement on the reform desired by the Council [NB: Reject the premise!] : the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the "law of prayer"; the Missal promulgated by Pius V must be considered as the extraordinary expression of the same "law of prayer". [Yah… but it is still an expression of the lex orandi in the ROMAN RITE!] With this new disposition Benedict XVI did not want that "the authority of the Council be damaged" or that "there be put into question the liturgical reform". Rather, the decision of the Pope has not yet entailed any change in the celebrative prayer of our ecclesial communities at all. His was only a gesture in the service of unity. [See? But we see it as a gesture for unity also with the past.] Let us therefore look foward and continue with enthusiam the journey undertaken by the Council.
Reminds me of the debate Cardinal Ratzinger had with Cardinal Kasper back in 1992. Local church versus universal church, inculturation versus interculturality, bishops versus Pope, hermeneutic of continuity versus hermeneutic of rupture.
Comment by Janice — 25 April 2008 @ 1:20 pmWhat an ideologue…anyone who reads the explanatory letter for the Motu Proprio or anything the Pope has written on liturgy knows that he’s just flat out wrong about the Pope’s reasoning for issuing the MP, as well as the Pope’s hopes that the two forms will enrich each other.
Comment by Johnny Domer — 25 April 2008 @ 1:21 pmHow do interviews like this get past the editor of L’Osservatore Romano? I’m a bit surprised something like this is allowed to be published with Vatican approval. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to read a backhanded compliment of the Pope and the damning with faint praise for the Extraordinary Form.
The last line says it all for me: “Let us therefore look forward and continue with enthusiasm the journey undertaken by the Council.”
In other words, let’s put that relic (the Extraordinary Form) in the closet where it belongs and bring it out only for the old fogies that still want it just to keep them quiet—just like the beautiful old vestments he locked up while he was Papal M.C.
When is the next Eucharistic Congress? It’ll be interesting to see what he tries to cook up then!
Comment by TNCath — 25 April 2008 @ 1:30 pmThe phrase “desired by the council” appears constantly from Piero Marini’s mouth, but I seriously doubt the current Ordinary Form was indeed what the Council Fathers envisioned. It is a pity that Old Marini spoke as if Paul VI were still the reigning Pope.
Comment by Theodorus — 25 April 2008 @ 1:37 pmDon’t you think he’s just the last vestige of Bugnini? BTW, will we ever know the real reason behind him being shipped to Tehran?
Comment by tertullian — 25 April 2008 @ 2:06 pmHow many cardinals were there who walked out of the Sistine Chapel when they were given a ‘sneak preview’ of the Novus Ordo?
Mons. Marini lives in an ideologue’s fantasy world.
Comment by David Kubiak — 25 April 2008 @ 2:24 pmFirst, let me start by recalling the words of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Trent at the solemn closing of the General Synod: “Anathema to all heretics; Fiat! Fiat! Fiat!”.
I’m not suggesting that anyone is a heretic, but God knows who is and who isn’t, and will judge all, irrespective of ecclesiastical rank.
Have mercy, o Lord, on the followers of Bugnini, and convert them to your ways.
Now, to the essence of my comment:
***
If it were true that we must live the liturgy of today, that only the Church of today matters – a false premisse, but lets assume otherwise – why is it that this Church of today, and this Liturgy of today, would necessarily mean the Church of the consilium, and the Bugnini Liturgy of the 60’s? The 60’s are the past, after all.
It doesn’t make sense.
We are not in the same contemporary world (mundo huius temporis, this reminds me of the transitional character expressed by the title of Gaudium et Spes) as the Council.
All that line of tought expressed by Marini is completely at odds with the Pope’s much afamed 2005 Christmas Adress to the Roman Curia.
What is His Excellency still doing at the Holy See, for heaven’s sake?
Comment by Prof. Basto — 25 April 2008 @ 2:28 pmPlease may I ask a very stupid question? How can we be Catholic and also fully “inculturated” at the same time?
This really is a genuine question (and I know I must appear thick) and not a disingenuous attempt to provoke an argument.
Comment by Trying to Learn — 25 April 2008 @ 2:49 pmFather Z wrote: “The liturgy we got after the Council was absolutely NOT the liturgy desired by the Council! The Council mandated a few points for reform. The Consilium went way beyond the mandate for ideological reasons and they used the Council as the blunt instrument to impose their will, as the Marini book documents.”
I agree with Father Z.
However, Popes Paul VI and John Paul II declared that the liturgy that we received following the Council was the liturgy desired by the Council.
The Latin Church bishops have confirmed repeatedly the post-Vatican II liturgical reform.
In the Final Report of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod, Pope John Paul II declared in clear terms the following:
“The liturgical renewal is the most visible fruit of the whole conciliar effort. Even if there have been some difficulties, it has generally been received joyfully and fruitfully by the faithful. ”
Either the liturgy that we have received following the Council is the liturgy desired by the Council or not.
Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, as well as the Latin Church bishops, have taught repeatedly that the post-Vatican II liturgy and liturgical reforms are 100 percent in accord with Vatican II.
Are we (those who do not believe that we have received the liturgy desired by the Council) correct or are the Popes and bishops correct?
Either we are right and the Popes and Latin Church bishops are wrong.
Or the Popes and bishops are right and we are wrong.
Pax.
Comment by Tom — 25 April 2008 @ 2:58 pmWhat’s this ?
Summorum Pontificum was only a gesture ?
Rubbish, and again I say rubbish.
Summorum Pontificum ended the era of the Indult, and it put the 1962 Missal on a par with the 1970 Missal.
There’s no point in anyone arguing about it, or attempting to contextualise it, or in some way trying to put their spin on it.
The fact is the two Missals now enjoy parity in the Latin rite.
The Pope, who is the supreme legislator, has said so.
Roma locuta est. Causa finita est.
Comment by Peter H. Wright — 25 April 2008 @ 3:05 pmFather Z wrote: “Yes… but you see… the men of the Consilium had long-reaching motives that were really theological and ecclesiological and the liturgy was the key to implementing them. The book under Marini’s name describes this in no uncertain terms: they wanted to reshape the Church. They went far far beyong the mandate given them by the Council. That is why when Marini uses the phrase “the liturgy desired by the Council” we must all instantly and firmly reject the premise. The liturgy we got after the Council was absolutely NOT the liturgy desired by the Council!”
The bottom line is that Pope Paul VI, not the Consilium, controlled liturgy.
The Consilium was an advisory body.
Pope Paul VI had final say over the post-Vatican II liturgy.
As the Vicar of Christ, for example, Pope Paul VI was so powerful that he exiled the exhalted former Consilium member Monsignor Bugnini to Iran.
To blame the Consilium for whatever liturgical ills that we perceive is flat-out wrong.
For better or worse, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo and controlled the liturgical reform.
During his reign, Pope John Paul II, of course, controlled the Mass and liturgical reform.
Said authority rests today with Pope Benedict XVI.
The Consilium did not venture beyond any mandate that they may have received from the Council.
Pope Paul VI initiated, controlled and dissolved the Consilium.
Pope Paul VI, and nobody else, promulgated the Novus Ordo Mass.
Comment by Tom — 25 April 2008 @ 3:33 pm“They see the reintroduction of a sure point of liturgical reference rooted in greater structure, more directive rubrics, a tradition of many centuries as the ultimate threat. They cannot stand the idea that the older form might influence the newer form…”
Yesterday, in our very little community in Argentina, we have our first “ad-orientem” Novus Ordo Mass (in latin). We still don’t know if our priest – and we all – are ever going to be able to celebrate in the Extraordiary Form. But “Summorum Pontificum” and Msgr. Marini’s work (and of course, WDTPRS blog) are really “influencing” the newer form (at least in the way we celebrate it).
And once again, I apologize for my poor English…
Comment by Antonio — 25 April 2008 @ 3:40 pmIt is interesting that many Catholics bash Monsignor Piero Marini’s view of Liturgy.
However, the manner in which he presented the Novus Ordo Mass was blessed by Pope John Paul II.
Comment by Tom — 25 April 2008 @ 3:43 pmSome deceive and some are deceived. The self-destruction of the Roman Rite, to a great extent, is due to the lack of capability to perceive the deception. No matter how Catholic a pope could be, he still can make misjudgement.
We all know what Pope Benedict really thinks about the liturgical reform after the council: “After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”(Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger).
Yes indeed, it is a “visible fruit,” but it is also true that it is “a banal on-the-spot product.”
Comment by Theodorus — 25 April 2008 @ 3:43 pmTNCath: I think you may be missing the big picture here. I think it is very useful to have interviews like this!
Also, the new editor of LO can’t do all the interviews himself
Finally, it is a normal thing for a head of a dicastery to be queried before some event that dicastery is involved in. The answers led to other interesting questions.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 25 April 2008 @ 3:44 pmTom: The Consilium was an advisory body.
No, it was not an advisory body. It had competence in certain spheres of the reform as did the Congregation for Rites.
You should see that book that came out under Marini’s name to understand better what the Consilium was.
And yes, the Consilium went beyond the Council’s mandate. But they did so with the permission of Paul VI.
Also, Tom, I will in a friendly way invite you not to try to dominate the combox in this entry.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 25 April 2008 @ 3:46 pmArchbishop Marini appears to be trapped in a time warp – the 1960s to be exact. No where have I read where the Archbishop believes that the Liturgy should transcend time or space, be timeless in its appeal. The Liturgy he speaks of his a man-centered Liturgy, an all about me Liturgy. Fortunately, the Archbishop and his fellow travelers are aging and, unless they are delusional, must understand their time is past and that Holy Tradition is coming back almost like a sweet balm. Tom
Comment by TJM — 25 April 2008 @ 3:52 pmA simple question in the midst of much complex talk—does Piero Marini speak English?
Comment by Judy — 25 April 2008 @ 3:57 pmTom said: Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, as well as the Latin Church bishops, have taught repeatedly that the post-Vatican II liturgy and liturgical reforms are 100 percent in accord with Vatican II.
However, he also quoted John Paul II’s words, “The liturgical renewal is the most visible fruit of the whole conciliar effort. Even if there have been some difficulties, it has generally been received joyfully and fruitfully by the faithful.”
Not exactly a glowing “100 percent” endorsement of the post-conciliar reforms. Anyway, whatever the opinions of Paul VI, John Paul II, or most Latin Rite bishops, the record is clear that the liturgy desired by the Council is not the liturgy that was manufactured after the Council.
To blame the Consilium for whatever liturgical ills that we perceive is flat-out wrong.
The Consilium is not blamed for “whatever liturgical ills that we perceive,” but only for those liturgical ills it introduced.
The Consilium did not venture beyond any mandate that they may have received from the Council.
Looking at Sacrosanctum Consilium general norms, and looking at the massive changes implemented by the Consilium, the only conclusion is that the Consilium ventured beyond the mandate they received from the Council.
Comment by Jordanes — 25 April 2008 @ 4:35 pm“And the Church which lives – I am citing Paul VI - is the Church of today, not the Church of yesterday or or tomorrow”
But isn’t Benedict XVI TODAY’S Pope? Paul VI was Pope much longer ago than YESTERDAY.
And if the EF of the rite is celebrated TODAY, isn’t that part of the Church that lives?
You can’t get more YESTERDAY than a 70s-style multiculturalist Mass.
Comment by TRP — 25 April 2008 @ 4:36 pmTom: You have written quite a lot here. So far, I’ve read it all. Surely you must have a central point you’re trying to make. However, I cannot guess what it is. If you can make your point it in two or three sentences that occupy no more than one vertical inch on the screen, I will read it. Otherwise, .... well, perhaps you get my point.
Comment by Henry Edwards — 25 April 2008 @ 4:43 pmJust to elaborate, I don’t think that Marini really cares about reflecting what is happening in the Church today—if he did he’d love Juventutem, FSSP, BXVI’s changes. His real agenda, I suspect, is to have the Church look and sound like today’s SECULAR world. That agenda may come from good intentions, but it is very misguided, to say the least.
Comment by TRP — 25 April 2008 @ 4:51 pmThere are those who are still very invested in the “Spirit of Vatican II.” To see its demise is to destroy all that has supported their lifetime achievements.
I understand where H.E. is coming from, but I disagree. For example, I have no interest in justifying my previous actions as a guitarist and folk Mass choir leader. When I read the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, I realized that my approach to music was not in line with the spirit or the letter of the law. That’s why I started a men’s Gregorian chant schola (now 13 members strong). I also do the pipe organ accompaniment when we need it.
I’m no liturgical genius. I just read the documents and did what it said to do.
Comment by RichR — 25 April 2008 @ 4:53 pmIn reponse to my statements, Jordanes wrote: Not exactly a glowing “100 percent” endorsement of the post-conciliar reforms. Anyway, whatever the opinions of Paul VI, John Paul II, or most Latin Rite bishops, the record is clear that the liturgy desired by the Council is not the liturgy that was manufactured after the Council.
“The Consilium is not blamed for “whatever liturgical ills that we perceive,” but only for those liturgical ills it introduced.
“Looking at Sacrosanctum Consilium general norms, and looking at the massive changes implemented by the Consilium, the only conclusion is that the Consilium ventured beyond the mandate they received from the Council.”
I don’t know whether I’m permitted to reply to you…I respect the fact that this is Father Z’s blog to control as he sees fit and he may erase the following…but I’ll try to respond to you.
1. The Novus Ordo was given a “100 percent” endorsement by Pope John Paul II and the Latin Church bishops.
2. I don’t disagree with you (and Father Z) in principle with that which we’ve received regarding the Novus Ordo.
I simply disagree with folks, here and elsewhere, who tend to blame the failed liturgical reform upon the Consilium.
We need to pin the Consilium’s so-called “liturgical ills” to Pope Paul VI. The Consilium acted only with Pope Paul VI’s permission. The Consilium did not promulgate the Novus Ordo. Pope Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo.
I guess that it’s just a matter of words. After all, we’re on the same page. You and I believe that the “reform” is out of control and requires correction.
That said, Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and the Latin Church bishops (current bishops as well) taught the Faithful that the liturgical “reform” is in perfect harmony with Vatican II.
Therefore, should we adhere to the teachings of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, as well as our bishops? Or should we continue to insist that the Novus Ordo is not, if you will, authentic Vatican II Liturgy?
Pax.
Comment by Tom — 25 April 2008 @ 5:31 pmTom, I would urge you to recognize the difference between the liturgy as found in the official Vatican Press editions of the liturgical books published between 1969 and 2002 and the actual experience of the liturgy in most parishes. It’s one thing to praise the books the Council produced…quite another to realize that…I would guess…more Catholics experience a 1962 Mass on Sunday than a 2002 (certainly true in America, where we still use a 1985 translation of a 1975 Latin edition).
Comment by Dr. Lee Fratantuono — 25 April 2008 @ 5:49 pm“[T]he Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘law of prayer’; the Missal promulgated by Pius V must be considered as the extraordinary expression of the same ‘law of prayer’.”
The Archbishop’s emphasis of “ordinary” versus “extraordinary” betrays his belief that the Mass of Paul VI is somehow superior to the Mass of the Ages. While the Holy Father used those terms in the MP, it is abundantly clear from the totality of the MP that the Holy Father does not consider either form to be superior or inferior. While the Archbishop is literally correct, I think the gist of his statement is intended to convey a dishonest point, i.e., that the Extraordinary Form is somehow inferior to the Mass of Paul VI.
Comment by John Enright — 25 April 2008 @ 6:10 pmThis Marini-bashing stuff is starting to get a bit old. I for one am very happy with the way things are unfolding on Pope Benedict’s and Guido Marini’s watch, but there is also much in this interview that I agree with. Those ridiculing his quotation about the Church of today, not of yesterday or tomorrow, would do well to note that Joseph Ratzinger himself has said the same thing. Furthermore, Marini is quite entitled to express theological and liturgical opinions that have not been censured by the Church, even if some disagree with them. And just because he may seem to be to the left of other positions does not make him ‘sinister’.
The Consilium-bashing is also unconvincing. It’s true that there are various ways in which Sacrosanctum Concilium might have been differently interpreted, but it seems to me that the Missal of Paul VI (as opposed to the way that Missal is often used) is, overall, a valid interpretation of that document. SC is, admittedly, ambiguous in places, but that does not alter the fact that the document as it stands is what was voted for by the Council Fathers and promulgated by the Pope and the Council. Even though there may have been ‘weaker’ interpretations of it, the ‘strong’ interpretation that resulted in the 1969/1970 Missal is valid and defensible.
Furthermore, it should be obvious to anyone with even limited knowledge of how ecclesistical governance operates that by itself the Consilium had no power whatsoever to implement anything. Even permanent dicasteries of the Roman Curia have no power independent of the Pope. It was Paul VI, and Paul VI alone, who promulgated the new edition of the Missale Romanum, a promulgation that was entirely valid and licit. IMO, “the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal” (to quote the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio) are still waiting to be truly discovered. They have, unfortunately, been covered over by many serious abuses and misunderstandings. It would be worth re-reading the two General Audience addresses that Paul VI gave just before the introduction of the new Missal in Italy.
Comment by Hiberniensis — 25 April 2008 @ 6:19 pmHiberniensis said: Furthermore, Marini is quite entitled to express theological and liturgical opinions that have not been censured by the Church
As are we, even if such expressions end up sounding to some like “Marini bashing” or “Consilium bashing.”
Can the post-conciliar liturgy be seen as, “overall,” a valid interpretation of Sacrosanctum Consilium? Sure. But that’s not what’s at issue. We’re talking about whether or not the post-conciliar fabricated liturgy is “THE liturgy of the Council” as Msgr. Marini claims. There is just no way that the Council Fathers could have desired or expected what the Consilium created. And yes, it was Paul VI who approved the Consilium’s work—but it was the Consilium’s work that he approved, and the Consilium’s work was ill-conceived and not in accordance with some of the general norms of Sacrosanctum Consilium (most notably the norm that a liturgical form should not be replaced with something new unless the good of the Church genuinely demanded it), let alone the principles found in Mediator Dei which ought to have been referred to as a guide to interpreting Sacrosanctum Consilium.
Comment by Jordanes — 25 April 2008 @ 6:38 pmIn the debate on this topic, what seems to consistently be forgotten (and maybe with good reason) is the 1965 Missal. IMHO, this Missal, though still lacking the greater selection of readings, essentially was that desired by the Council and Sacrasanctum Concilium. I remember, I was an Altar Boy. The Propers were replaced by really bad hymns (I still suffer pain when I recall “The Mass is Ended”); the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were there but without the psalm and mostly ignored, there were lay readers, communion received standing and Prayers of the Faithful (but thankfully, no handshake). It was still the 1962 calendar with excellent English translations from the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine approved for use here in Canada. The priests gestures were shortened and I think we said one Confiteor all together.
But it was ALL in English, and facing the people.
I suggest that even this Missal went further than the Fathers of the Council recommended. But, perhaps it is where the “Reform of the Reform” should look for its future. I think we could live with that Mass as the Ordinary Forma.
I clearly recall my mother sadly opining, “Oh well, Father says it is all Vatican II!”
The funny thing, it was known as the “New Mass!”
So, I guess the Concilium, Bugnini, Marini and Paul VI gave us the “New” New Mass…but make no mistake, the “New” New Mass is a “rupture!’
I accept it and attend it only in select parishes where I know the priest will say it properly…and I have now walked out three times where it is not!
Comment by David D. — 25 April 2008 @ 7:24 pm“it was Paul VI who approved the Consilium’s work—but it was the Consilium’s work that he approved”
But he did approve it, and that’s the important thing. Much of what Popes do is prepared beforehand by others (just think of encyclicals and dogmatic definitions). But once they approve it and promulgate it in their own name, it’s no longer just the work of others. It bears papal authority. The Missal of Paul VI is precisely that – the Missal of Paul VI, not the Missal of the Consilium.
Comment by Hiberniensis — 25 April 2008 @ 8:30 pmDr. Lee Fratantuono wrote: “Tom, I would urge you to recognize the difference between the liturgy as found in the official Vatican Press editions of the liturgical books published between 1969 and 2002 and the actual experience of the liturgy in most parishes.”
At a given parish, Catholics may encounter a Novus Ordo Mass that is offered in fashion similar to the Traditional Latin Mass…with everything from Latin to Eucharistic Prayer I…from Mass ad orientem to Gregorian Chant.
Conversely, the Novus Ordo may be offered in “liberal” fashion…vs. populum, with Communion in the Hand, altar girls, EMs, non-Catholics serving as lectors, Eucharistic Prayer II, vestments that many Catholic consider ugly, and music in line with that which was presented during the National Stadium Papal Mass.
Each Mass that I have just described is in harmony with Rome’s teachings.
The problem with the liturgical reform is that Rome has initiated many liturgical novelties.
Said novelties lead to monumental differences regarding the experience of the liturgy at the parish level.
I believe that a future Pope will consign the awful liturgical novelties to oblivion and return to the Traditional Latin Mass.
For now, we will experience striking Novus Ordo liturgical differences from parish to parish…even from hour to hour at a parish.
Only Latin Catholics who seek the Traditional Latin Mass can be certain that from place to place, that they will encounter liturgical stability.
Pax.
Comment by Tom — 25 April 2008 @ 9:18 pmHiberniensis said: But he did approve it, and that’s the important thing.
For the purposes of this discussion it isn’t important at all.
But once they approve it and promulgate it in their own name, it’s no longer just the work of others. It bears papal authority. The Missal of Paul VI is precisely that – the Missal of Paul VI, not the Missal of the Consilium.
All true, and all irrelevant. There is no dispute that the reformed Missal bears papal authority, but that is unimportant when discussing whether or not the Consilium did its work correctly and in accordance with the principles laid down by the Council Fathers and sound liturgical principles. When the work and methodology of the Consilium is under discussion, it’s no good to change the subject to whether or not Pope Paul VI subsequently approved the results of their work and methodology. The Pope’s approval only proves that the Missal has been approved by the Pope, not that what he approved is in perfect, or even “overall,” accordance with Sacrosanctum Consilium.
Comment by Jordanes — 25 April 2008 @ 9:24 pmGive him enough rope, and he’ll end up in charge of ministry to the Esperanto community.
Comment by RC — 25 April 2008 @ 9:36 pmTom,
“We need to pin the Consilium’s so-called “liturgical ills” to Pope Paul VI.”
our purpose here is not to judge people but to discuss the liturgy. we talk about the NO as being a product of the consilium only because they did all the grunt work in inserting the progressivest ideology into the Mass. we dont care who is responsable for these problems, only that the existance of the consilium demonstrates that the NO isnt organic development. lets leave the judgement to God.
Comment by adamsaj — 25 April 2008 @ 9:36 pmI simply disagree with folks, here and elsewhere, who tend to blame the failed liturgical reform upon the Consilium.
We need to pin the Consilium’s so-called “liturgical ills” to Pope Paul VI. The Consilium acted only with Pope Paul VI’s permission. The Consilium did not promulgate the Novus Ordo. Pope Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo.
I guess that it’s just a matter of words. After all, we’re on the same page. You and I believe that the “reform” is out of control and requires correction.
That said, Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and the Latin Church bishops (current bishops as well) taught the Faithful that the liturgical “reform” is in perfect harmony with Vatican II.
Therefore, should we adhere to the teachings of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, as well as our bishops? Or should we continue to insist that the Novus Ordo is not, if you will, authentic Vatican II Liturgy?
Pax.
Comment by Tom
Once again, you are right and wrong.
Right in saying that the final authority (and blame) rests on Paul VI. But you are wrong in insisting that Paul VI micro-managed the Consilium.
I think a key to the Montini mind can be found in the following story: Some years ago the previous Abbot of Fontgombault attended a Benedictine conference in Rome. Finally, Paul VI spoke to them, praising Gregorian Chant. Afterwards, the Abbot approached him, saying, “You spoke in favor of Greg Chant, but it has vanished from most monasteries.” PVI said he knew that. When the Abbot asked him why he chose to do nothing about it, Paul VI answered, “Because I want my children to be free.”
Comment by RBrown — 25 April 2008 @ 9:42 pmFurthermore, Marini is quite entitled to express theological and liturgical opinions that have not been censured by the Church, even if some disagree with them.
That’s a vacuous line that means nothing. The topic here is what he said, not whether he had the right to say it.
The Consilium-bashing is also unconvincing. It’s true that there are various ways in which Sacrosanctum Concilium might have been differently interpreted, but it seems to me that the Missal of Paul VI (as opposed to the way that Missal is often used) is, overall, a valid interpretation of that document.
BXVI disagrees. He thinks the present state of the liturgy is out of line with SC. I suggest you read The Spirit of the Liturgy.
SC is, admittedly, ambiguous in places, but that does not alter the fact that the document as it stands is what was voted for by the Council Fathers and promulgated by the Pope and the Council.
As I’ve said here before, there are texts in SC that can be used to defend every liturgical opinion from that of the SSPX to balloons on the altar and celebrants in clown suits.
Even though there may have been ‘weaker’ interpretations of it, the ‘strong’ interpretation that resulted in the 1969/1970 Missal is valid and defensible.
But, as is well known, not defended by JRatzinger.
Furthermore, it should be obvious to anyone with even limited knowledge of how ecclesistical governance operates that by itself the Consilium had no power whatsoever to implement anything. Even permanent dicasteries of the Roman Curia have no power independent of the Pope. It was Paul VI, and Paul VI alone, who promulgated the new edition of the Missale Romanum, a promulgation that was entirely valid and licit.
Agreed. But its validity and liceity are not guarantees that it is of high quality. For example, Chapter IV, on the reform of the Divine Office, is a mess.
IMO, “the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal” (to quote the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio) are still waiting to be truly discovered. They have, unfortunately, been covered over by many serious abuses and misunderstandings. It would be worth re-reading the two General Audience addresses that Paul VI gave just before the introduction of the new Missal in Italy.
Comment by Hiberniensis
I have read them, quoted from them here (and in my theology classes), and find them largely a disaster.
The foundation for the entire mess is Montini syncretism—he says that the Eucharist is both a memorial of the Passion and Death and (following Protestantism) the Last Supper. He is doing little else than trying to glue two opposing concepts glued together.
The new catechism corrects the problem. But the dissonance between lex orandi and lex credendi remains.
Comment by RBrown — 25 April 2008 @ 10:05 pmThose ridiculing his quotation about the Church of today, not of yesterday or tomorrow, would do well to note that Joseph Ratzinger himself has said the same thing.
Comment by Hiberniensis
I agree about the Church and liturgy of today. But celebrating the Eucharist versus populum and in the vernacular comes from the Protestantism of about 400 years ago. Hard to be more “yesterday” than that.
__
I notice also:
1. That Abp Marini invokes the magic word “Pastoral”. But by any pastoral measure, the Paul VI liturgy has been a flop.
2. That he refers to “Ecclesial Communities” when he speaks of Catholics. That is a theological phrase used to describe Protestant groups. And so he seems not to distinguish between the Church and Protestant groups.
Comment by RBrown — 26 April 2008 @ 8:26 am“As I’ve said here before, there are texts in SC that can be used to defend every liturgical opinion from that of the SSPX to balloons on the altar and celebrants in clown suits.”—RBrown
:-) That’s something with which people like Tom and I would agree!
Pope Paul VI, after all, wanted his children to be free. Liberty is the foundation of anarchy. Isn’t that what we have today?
Respectfully, Father, I don’t see that Tom “hogs” the board more than some others do.
Comment by Martha — 26 April 2008 @ 10:00 amAn irony here is that those so-called progressives living in the past with Paul VI are very often the same people who once decried traditionalists for living in the past with Pius XII.
Comment by Habemus Papam — 26 April 2008 @ 10:17 amHibierniensis said, “It would be worth re-reading the two General Audience addresses that Paul VI gave just before the introduction of the new Missal in Italy.”
I have read those two audiences and they scare me half to death.
Comment by Kevin J. Symonds — 26 April 2008 @ 10:22 am“Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic Prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.”
Joseph Ratzinger, ‘The Feast of Fatih: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy’
The problem is not with the Missal of Paul VI (that is, with its contents), but with the way it is thought of and used (as if it were a new book and not simply the most recent, revised edition of the Roman Missal). Practices such as versus populum and Communion in the hand and the complete monopoly of the vernacular are not intrinsic to the Missal nor are they in any way mandated by it. To repeat, the Missal is fine; it’s the liturgical climate in which it’s used that’s the problem.
Comment by Hiberniensis — 26 April 2008 @ 11:27 am“if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness. The greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of scriptural texts, the joint acts of the ministers, the silences which will mark various deeper moments in the rite, will all help to bring this out.”
This is the problem, that the rite is hardly ever carried out as it ought to be, with hieratic austerity and restraint. What Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict was and is doing is teaching us by word and example how to celebrate according to the Missal of Paul VI the way it ought to be done. He is not preparing by stages to do away with the Missal.
Comment by Hiberniensis — 26 April 2008 @ 11:41 amThe quote in my comment above is by Paul VI.
Comment by Hiberniensis — 26 April 2008 @ 11:56 amDavid D: “I think we could live with that [1965] Mass as the Ordinary Forma.”
That’s an interesting idea, because while it was different from the old Mass (and people did in fact call it the “New Mass”), it wasn’t an absolute shock when it was introduced. The priest told us on the last day of the Latin Mass that this would be the last time we would ever see it, and then the new rite was introduced the next day.
But it was like the lowest of low masses, and the translation used was already familiar and accepted because it was the translation used in most of the missals that people had been reading for years. The hymns were awful, but then, Catholic hymns had been awful for years, including the two that used to be done even at the old Mass. Also, everybody knew it was temporary, and we thought the 1965 missal might be a jumping off point for a better revision later on. But I think its temporary character was one of its liabilities, and encouraged a tendency to be sloppy with the words and the celebration (although it must be recalled that a lot of priests were sloppy with the earlier Latin words and celebration, too!), which then led to creative reinterpretations. And of course, the “hymns” were immediately replaced by awful folk-songs, usually expressing some left wing sentiment or other.
However, are you sure the priest was facing the people in that revision? I don’t seem to recall that until somewhat later; most churches weren’t even set up to make this possible, and I remember at the time of the NO they started adding tables for this purpose. Of course, it’s possible that this was a local option. In any case, I agree that we’d be better off with the 1965 rite than the Novus Ordo, although I think it’s highly unlikely that this would happen.
Comment by EDG — 26 April 2008 @ 1:00 pmFather, what do you think about the first part of the interview, in which mons. Marini says that his Commission will be concerned with all the local Eucharistic Congresses? It is a promise or a menace? :-)
Comment by Luca — 26 April 2008 @ 1:08 pm“Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic Prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.”
Joseph Ratzinger, ‘The Feast of Fatih: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy’
The problem is not with the Missal of Paul VI (that is, with its contents), but with the way it is thought of and used (as if it were a new book and not simply the most recent, revised edition of the Roman Missal). Practices such as versus populum and Communion in the hand and the complete monopoly of the vernacular are not intrinsic to the Missal nor are they in any way mandated by it. To repeat, the Missal is fine; it’s the liturgical climate in which it’s used that’s the problem.
Comment by Hiberniensis
“Feast of Faith” is a fairly old book, published in German in 1981 and probably written before he became Prefect of the SCDF.
Generally, JRatzinger has spoken in more general, theological concepts about the liturgy. But in later years his observations and criticisms have become more pointed—a man nearing retirement (or so he thought) who felt free to say whatever he wanted. And so in his Memoirs, he is not so kind to the New Missal. “The old building was demolished and another was built, to be sure using old materials . . .” (p. 148)
The 1970 Missal is thought of and used as a new book simply because that is what it is. In those two weekly audiences to which you refer Paul VI refers to it as an “innovation”, repeatedly using the word “new” to describe it—new rite, new rules, new directions, new anaphoras.
It is revisionist history to say now that it was not new.
Having said that, I do agree that Latin Novus Ordo ad orientem would be a huge improvement over the present situation and end most of the liturgical nonsense. But I also want to note that many of the gestures have been eliminated. And I think that that the Novus Ordo Offertory is seriously deficient.
Comment by RBrown — 26 April 2008 @ 1:09 pm“if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness. The greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of scriptural texts, the joint acts of the ministers, the silences which will mark various deeper moments in the rite, will all help to bring this out.”
This is the problem, that the rite is hardly ever carried out as it ought to be, with hieratic austerity and restraint. What Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict was and is doing is teaching us by word and example how to celebrate according to the Missal of Paul VI the way it ought to be done. He is not preparing by stages to do away with the Missal.
Comment by Hiberniensis
If Paul VI thought the 1962 Missal and the 1970 Missal were basically the same, why would he have worked so hard to suppress the former
And I disagree about was BXVI wants to do. I think there are some serious changes that he wants to make to the Novus Ordo. His age, however, will limit them.
Comment by RBrown — 26 April 2008 @ 1:20 pm“We all know what Pope Benedict really thinks about the liturgical reform after the council: “After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”(Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger).”
Despite the widespread misuse of this quotation on the internet, His Holiness was NOT referring to the Novus Ordo per se here—he was condemning abusive innovations thought up “on-the-spot.”
http://www.barroux.org/docum/RATZINGER_REF.pdf
In the same essay he laments as a “source of sadness” those who separate themselves from the Church because of attachment to an older form of the liturgy. The seeds of his motu proprio, where he suggests both forms will influence each other, are clearly in evidence even this long ago.
Comment by Antiquarian — 26 April 2008 @ 1:20 pmIf one sits down with the two ordines – the 1962 ordo and the 1970 ordo – and compares them, they are not actually that different on paper. The Offertory is probably the most different, but I don’t think the 1970 version is deficient, especially considering that the most important part of the Offertory is the Secreta/Super Oblata. The problem is that the two ordines, while very similar on paper, usually look very different in practice – mostly because of the orientation of the priest and the music (unsuitable songs instead of even the minimum of Gregorian chant), but also because of the language and because the Roman Canon is almost never used. It is in the actual practice of parishes that change must come about, rather than in the existing liturgical legislation. I would welcome a change in legislation in favour of a silent Canon on week-days and possibily an audible Canon with a silent Consecration on Sundays and Holy-Days, but pretty much everything else that needs to be done to rescue the Roman Rite can – and should – be done by parish clergy under the existing legislation – versus Deum, Gregorian chant, the Roman Canon as the preferred option on Sundays, Communion on the tongue while kneeling, etc. (even a private recitation of psalm 42 in the sacristy and the Placeat Tibi during the return to the sacristy can be done under the existing laws).
Comment by Hiberniensis — 26 April 2008 @ 2:21 pmHiberniensis said: If one sits down with the two ordines – the 1962 ordo and the 1970 ordo – and compares them, they are not actually that different on paper.
Nonsense. They have little in common with each other—their differences are much more numerous and significant than what they have in common. But I think you aren’t referring to the 1970 Ordo, you’re referring to the first Eucharistic Prayer of the 1970 Ordo, that is, the Roman Canon. The 1962 Ordo has just the Roman Canon, but the 1970 Ordo has several Eucharistic Prayers, and the latest edition of the Latin Ordo has even more. Indeed, in the U.S. there are now several more Eucharistic Prayers not in the Roman Missal at all—I could be wrong, but I think they exist only in English and are Roman Rite liturgy only in a technical sense (in the sense that Latin Rite clergy in the U.S. may use them, even though they aren’t in the Roman Missal). They’re found in a red softcover book—my pastor has used some of them within the past year, and my bishop used one of them just this morning at the cathedral. (I’ve lost track—just how many Eucharistic Prayers are now weighing down the Ordinary Use of the Roman Rite?)
Comment by Jordanes — 26 April 2008 @ 2:42 pmFrankly, this entire thread is one reason why I tire so much of liturgy debates. One group brings up legitimate questions about the reform. Another group of conservatives (seemingly from the “apologist” tradition) come in and castigate everyone for disagreeing with anything or any position that bears the mark of a Pope (even if prudential). This group (led by Mark Shea) represent the folks who think music and art seemingly cannot be judged on any aesthetic level, thus making any criticism of music at last week’s stadium mass disrespectful and over the top.
Comment by Don Altabello — 26 April 2008 @ 3:01 pmIn claiming that the two ordines are very similar I’m obviously talking about the original Latin versions rather than the ICEL transaltion (the new translation will be a massive improvement).
The Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei and Ite Missa Est in both ordines are exactly the same.
The Penitential Rite and the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar do present notable differences. But Penitential Rite Form A and B are simply parts of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar now recited by all (admittedly the Confiteor has been shortened, but it is still recognisably the Confiteor). There is nothing to prevent the priest reciting those parts of the Prayers at the Foot of Altar that have not been incorporated into the Penetential Rite privately in the sacristy. Form C, which seems to show the least continuity, actually has the most from the point of view of the congregation in that it is simply the Kyrie (with tropes – medieval accreti