Benedict XVI about Summorum Pontificum en route to France

I read this in ZENIT. 

Usually the transcripts of the actual questions and answers are eventually released.

It sounds as if the Pope might have been dealing with a question that was a bit polemical, but we’ll see.

My first inclination is to place this in the context of what the Holy See has always said to the French bishops: "toleratur", a placating way of saying that this is just something to be tolerated.

I suspect that this is not an example of the Holy Father walking back his provisions. 

Pontiff Denies Claim 1962 Missal Is a Regression

Calls Liturgy a Living, Developing Reality

EN ROUTE TO PARIS, SEPT. 12, 2008 (Zenit.org).- An allowance for the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal is in no way a return to the past, but rather an expression of pastoral concern, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope affirmed this today en route to France; he gave a brief press conference on the plane, answering four questions previously submitted by the journalists selected to be in the press corps accompanying the Holy Father.

The Pontiff said it is "groundless" to fear that "Summorum Pontificum" — which opened the way for a wider celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal — is a regression.

"This ‘motu proprio’ is simply an act of tolerance, with a pastoral objective, for people who have been formed in this liturgy, who love it, know it and want to live with this liturgy," he said. "It is a small group, given that it presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture. But it seems to me a normal demand of faith and pastoral concern for a bishop of our Church to have love and tolerance for these people and permit them to live with this liturgy."

"There is no opposition whatsoever between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy," Benedict XVI continued. "Each day, the Council fathers celebrated Mass according to this old rite and, at the same time, have conceived a natural development for the liturgy in all of this century, since the liturgy is a living reality that develops and that conserves its identity in its development."

"Therefore, there are certainly distinct accents, but a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the preceding liturgy," the Pope affirmed. "I think that there is the possibility of mutual enrichment. It’s clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times."

 

So… effectively, the Holy Father has stressed that the liturgy, as something needing space for organic growth, must be seen in continuity.  But he looks forward rather than backward.

More later as I digest.

Benedict XVI about Summorum Pontificum en route to France
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Benedict XVI about Summorum Pontificum en route to France

  1. Gregor says:

    Dear Father,

    here is a transcript of “What The Pope Really Said”:

    “Que dites-vous à ceux qui, en France, craignent que le Motu proprio ‘Summorum pontificum’ marque un retour en arrière sur les grandes intuitions du Concile Vatican II ?

    C’est une peur infondée parce que ce Motu proprio est simplement un acte de tolérance, dans un but pastoral pour des personnes qui ont été formées dans cette liturgie, l’aiment, la connaissent, et veulent vivre avec cette liturgie. C’est un petit groupe parce que cela suppose une formation en latin, une formation dans une certaine culture.

    Mais il me semble que c’est exigence normale de la foi et de pastorale pour un évêque de notre Eglise d’avoir de l’amour et de la tolérance pour ces personnes et de leur permettre de vivre avec cette liturgie. Il n’y a aucune opposition entre la liturgie renouvelée par le Concile Vatican II et cette liturgie. Chaque jour (du Concile, ndlr), les pères conciliaires ont célébré la messe selon l’ancien rite et, en même temps, ils ont conçu un développement naturel pour la liturgie dans tout ce siècle car la liturgie est une réalité vivante qui se développe et conserve dans son développement son identité. Il y a donc certainement des accents différents, mais quand même une identité fondamentale qui exclue une contradiction, une opposition entre la liturgie renouvelée et la liturgie précédente. Je pense quand même qu’il y a une possibilité d’un enrichissement des deux parties. D’un côté les amis de l’ancienne liturgie peuvent et doivent connaître les nouveaux saints, les nouvelles préfaces de la liturgie, etc… d’autre part, la liturgie nouvelle souligne plus la participation commune mais, toujours, n’est pas seulement l’assemblée d’une seule communauté mais un acte de l’Eglise universelle, en communion avec tous les croyants de tous les temps, et un acte d’adoration. Dans ce sens, il me semble qu’il y a un enrichissement réciproque et il est clair que la liturgie renouvelée est la liturgie ordinaire de notre temps.”

    Source: I.MEDIA via Le Forum Catholique, http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=430208

  2. The Holy Father’s answer to the question sounds like he considers the use of the EF to be merely a concession to those of us who still prefer the older Use. It is a comment that could would please an Arthur Roach or an Eric Trautman. Certainly it’s a far cry from the way Cardinal Csstrillon spoke while he was in Westminster. I wonder what gives. Is he he merely trying to placate a nervous French hierarchy?

  3. Bacs says:

    Every day I am curious about new surprises of our Holy Father! But this is definitively not the sort of surprise I exspected. In fact I am shocked! He contradicts himself as he said: “Was nach dem Konzil weithin geschehen ist, bedeutet etwas ganz anderes [= totally different]: An die Stelle der gewordenen Liturgie hat man die gemachte Liturgie gesetzt. Man wollte nicht mehr das organische Werden und Reifen des durch die Jahrhunderte hin Lebendigen fortführen …” He explicitely called the old rite organically or naturally developed in contrast to the man-made new rite of Mass. That were his own written words.
    I am very disappointed. We perhaps we have to pray even more for the Pope.

  4. My first inclination is to place this in the context of what the Holy See has always said to the French bishops: “toleratur”, a placating way of saying that this is just something to be tolerated.

    I suspect that this is not an example of the Holy Father walking back his provisions.

  5. Geoffrey says:

    I thought His Holiness’s comments were very clear. Just as he did in Summorum Pontificum, he has made the clear distinction of two forms in one rite, ordinary and extraordinary. He also made mention of “mutual enrichment” of each other, which is what we really need.

  6. Tecumseh says:

    Geoffrey I am not an intellectual, Joe Six pack that’s me.I have been attending Traditional Masses on an off for 30 years, I’m 50. Just what enrichment could the “Clown Mass” pass on to the Traditional Mass.
    I don’t have German or French so I miss the context of other posts. What I have noticed on EWTN site is that Saturday Mass is referred to as “Eucharistic Celebration”. The 2 Masses at Lourdes are referred to as “Holy Mass”. Sunday on the prairie and Monday in the Rosary Basilica. Monday I’d bet is going to be a Traditional Mass.
    1 Billion Catholics and the Pope takes time out to “Tolerate” the faithful who want the Traditional Mass, whilst our own (English) Bishops hate us for pointing out the blooming obvious. Que Serra Serra, we will just have to wait till the church goes right down the pan (can in American usage), it will not be long now.

  7. Mark says:

    It’s good to know that Traditional Catholics within the Church deserve to be tolerated by their Bishops.

    However, in my Diocese it is no longer an issue of the Novus Ordo mass and two TLM communities. It’s becoming an issue of Priestless Sunday Celebrations, Novus Ordo Mass, and the two TLM communities. It’s becoming hard not to muse that on a longer timetable, in some places, the Novus Ordo Mass may prove to be a transitional species.

  8. Valerie says:

    It was a great answer from Notre Saint Père! In France, it is very fashionable to be always on the side of the minority, the poorest, which is laudable, but it is more a socialist/communist mentality that a christian ideal. The rich are evil, and the poor becuase of their ppoverty sinless.
    For example, on a TV “documentaire”, a “catholic” said he was very concerned with the well being of his neighbor which is why he was communist and catholic!!!

    To my understanding, I interpreted the pope’s comment as such: why do you care, it is a small group after all, why do you fear them? tolerate them that is all. He was putting back in their face the empty catechese they was taught.

    To me he was telling them, you who always seem to defend the little one,the minority, let the one who loves the Tridentine ALONE. and tolerate them in your diocese, which is NOT the case in most cases. The bishop gives permition for the Tridentine Mass.

    I found very interesting the seemingly complete silence of catholic reporters on this I am watching now the Mass, we’ll see. All they seem to debate now is how to accept Jesus and not bug the atheists!!!
    for those who want to work on their French :-)
    here is the linck: http://www.kto.com

    Pray for my dear country

  9. Valerie says:

    sorry, it is http://www.ktotv.com

    the beginning hymn is great, hopefully they won’t bring the band from the youth evening prayer last night :-((

  10. QC says:

    First off, for better or worse, it is pretty undeniable that the ordinary form is the ordinary form of our times. That of course could change naturally in the decades and centuries to come.

    Second, the Pope is speaking to the French bishops of whom many are fearful or even hostile towards the EF and the MP, yet who value “tolerance” as a great virtue. I think he is putting this in terms they can appreciate without being hostile towards them (in this age, the carrot often gets more done than the stick).

  11. Jordanes says:

    Bacs said: He explicitely called the old rite organically or naturally developed in contrast to the man-made new rite of Mass. That were his own written words.

    He never said the new rite of Mass was “man-made” and not organically or naturally developed. He said the Church’s liturgy organically developed throughout her history, but today we are seeing liturgy that is a banal, manufactured product: liturgies that are made up.

    Tecumseh said: Just what enrichment could the “Clown Mass” pass on to the Traditional Mass.

    The reformed Roman Missal does not contain liturgy for a Clown Mass. I’m sure the Pope was referring to the Church’s actual liturgy, as found in her liturgical books and the best of her liturgical traditions, not the banal, man-made liturgies that we have often suffered from.

  12. Maureen says:

    Consider the Holy Father’s words in the context of his other speeches this trip. Particularly, think about his talk to “the World of Culture” (ooh, how French!) or rather, to French cultural leaders. He stood in the middle of a gorgeous building built by monks for education, confiscated by the French Revolution government, used by them as a prison and other unsavory things. Recently bought back by the French archdiocese and turned back into a school and religious building.

    Then the Pope argued that man should search for God, study the Bible, employ reason, learn languages and history and all knowledge (for God’s sake!), sing chant, create beauty, and tell the world about God’s revelation of Himself and the answers everyone is looking for. And that if this isn’t done, European civilization is done for, no longer a civilization. The end.

    In short, he preached hard and heavy to save the world and the souls of people who wouldn’t get within yards of a church on Sunday, by starting from “oh, don’t worry, this is just a cute little talk about the history of a building”.

    Similarly, the Pope’s homily at Vespers worked itself up to a demand that people let Scripture study and meditation change them into living images of Christ, and his talk to the people outside quickly worked up to preaching the Holy Spirit and the Adoration of the Cross. He is working and preaching, this trip, with great passionate words, doing everything he can to wake up the “Eldest Daughter of the Church.” And she is waking up like Sleeping Beauty, and the thorns cannot hold her back any more. The Parisians were going nuts, and I saw banners thanking the Pope for the motu proprio.

    So all the Pope’s talk about “tolerance” is just lulling certain people into complacency. (People for whom complacence about the motu would be an improvement.) It’s a starting point, not the end.

    In some ways, his work with his bishops is harder than preaching to the unchurched or even the uncaring. There is a lot of history to overcome, but the French press claims that the French clergy are finally starting to study and love the Pope’s proclamations and his pre-Pope books.

    Whether that’s true or not, we’ve seen in the US that the Pope’s visits really do “strengthen the brethren”, and make them both more malleable to allow traditional devotion and more spiny against scandal and bad teaching. Some bishops are more willing to respond than others, but things are moving.

    So sure, it looks like the Pope is just plinking away with a BB gun. But after a year of it, that elephant he’s hunting is looking pretty poorly.

  13. Jon says:

    Valerie and QC,

    I agree heartily with you both. When I read the Holy Father’s comments, my first reaction was that this was a “put on the spot” effort to throw cooling water on the French bishops, who are pulling their hair out over SP. He’s telling them basically, “Stop getting your knickers in a twist (as my UK friends say). These people aren’t a threat, and your precious Novus Ordo isn’t going anywhere.”

    The unfortunate thing is that this little snippet on a plane is going to be picked up and run with by bishops who ignore whole encyclicals, and Benedict’s words are going to be used to pooh-pooh traditionalists as simply a bothersome little group that needs to be “tolerated” and whose concerns need not be incorporated into the greater life of the Church.

  14. Antiquarian says:

    For what it’s worth, my French dictionary offers “indulgence” and “acceptance” as definitions of tolérance, along with the English tolerance. Within the context of him speaking to the French bishops, notoriously unindulgent and non-accepting, it may become clearer.

    Beware the false cognate in dealing with statements by someone as intellectually subtle as the Holy Father, and don’t fall into the trap of the student who translates “demander” as “demand” because that’s what it looks like.

  15. RBrown says:

    What was BXVI supposed to say? “I issued the Motu Proprio because the new liturgy stinks.”

    When you’re trying to lead liberals (which he is), it is smart to appeal to what they think is their most precious virtue–tolerance.

  16. Maureen says:

    Courtesy of Google’s translation page:

    “What would you say to those who, in France, fear that the Motu proprio ‘Summorum pontificum’ marks a step backwards on the great intuitions of Vatican II?”

    “It is an unfounded fear, because the Motu proprio is simply an act of tolerance in a pastoral goal(?) for people who have been trained in that liturgy; they love, know and want to live with this liturgy. It is a small group because it requires training in Latin, training in a certain culture.

    But it seems to me that this is a normal requirement of faith and pastoral care, for a bishop of our church to have love and tolerance for these people, and to enable them to live with this liturgy. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and the liturgy. Each day (of the Council), the Conciliar Fathers celebrated Mass under the old Rite, and, at the same time, they developed a natural development for the liturgy throughout this century — because the liturgy is a living reality that develops and in its development retains its identity. There are certainly different accents, but still a fundamental identity which excluded a contradiction, an opposition between the liturgy and the liturgy renewed earlier.

    “I still think there is a possibility of an enrichment of both parties. On one side the friends of the old liturgy can and must be aware of the new saints, new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.; on the other hand, the new liturgy stresses the joint participation, but always, is not only the assembly of a single community, but an act of the universal Church, in communion with all believers of all time, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the regular liturgy of our time.”

    You will notice that the Pope only admonishes “the friends of the old liturgy” not to neglect the old saints, whereas he feels it necessary to make a point that the OF Mass is an act of worship of the universal Church and not just a prayer meeting of the people who happen to have their butts in the pews at that particular place and time. You will also notice that the press didn’t report that part. ;)

  17. Francis Brennan says:

    Fr. Z.,

    I think we need to bear the context in mind. The French bishops are particularly hostile to Summorum Pontificum which they generally regard as a major and damaging regression, and Pope Benedict does not want to pour oil onto the flames. But if you de-constuct the Holy Father’s words, I don’t think he is retreating from the Motu Proprio at all.

    So he makes his key points, namely:

    1. “It is groundless [strong language] to fear that Summorum Pontificum is a regression.”

    2. “There is no opposition whatsoever [strong language] between the liturgy renewed [OK, now he’s using diplomatic language but this is a state visit] by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.”

    3. “Each day, the Council fathers celebrated Mass according to this old rite.” [just to hammer the previous point home]

    4. “I think that there is the possibility of mutual enrichment.” [He chose not to add that this is his desire.]

    As a way of challenging the intransigence of many bishops, the Holy Father introduces the concepts of tolerance, charity and good pastoral practice, with the implication that it is intolerant, uncharitable and poor pastoral practice to obstruct the Old Rite:

    1. “This motu proprio [note the catch-phrase he’s throwing to people for when they write to their bishop about the Old Rite] is simply an act of tolerance, with a pastoral objective, for people who have been formed in this liturgy, who love it, know it and want to live with this liturgy.”

    2. “It seems to me a normal demand of faith and pastoral concern for a bishop of our Church to have love and tolerance for these people and permit them to live with this liturgy.”

    Pope Benedict alludes to the concept of a hermeneutic of continuity:

    1. He refers to: “A natural development for the liturgy in all of this century, since the liturgy is a living reality that develops and that conserves its identity in its development.”

    2. He also talks of “A fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the preceding liturgy.”

    While making all these points, the Pope sugar-coats an otherwise strong message with two statements of the obvious, to assuage the fears of the bishops:

    1. “It’s clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times.” [but we’re working on it…]

    2. Those who love the Old Rite are “a small group, given that it presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture.” [but we’re working on it…]

    If you re-arrange the various points the Pope is making, you could argue that this is actually a very forceful statement. It’s just cleverly packaged.

  18. Maureen says:

    Re: “[But we’re working on it.]

    That’s very perceptive. One of the points of the Pope’s culture talk was that _God_ is still working and creating the world, and that it is very dignified to do work in order to assist God’s ongoing work of creation.

    So it’s not just about having a project; it’s about having an ongoing one. God who can make the world out of nothing is “so humble” as to use us as instruments (a line from the Pope’s Vespers homily at Notre Dame Cathedral), and hence to build brick by brick. :)

  19. tjm says:

    The more interesting question which was not asked of the Holy Father was whether by issuing Summorum Pontificum he was trying to modify the excesses present in how the Novus Ordo is typically celebrated and reconcile that Rite more in keeping with the concept of organic development and more along the lines of what Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated. What does everyone think of that question and how His Holiness would have answered it? Tom

  20. liturgyfan says:

    @Jordanes

    Come on! That\’s sophisticating at its best! Say it: In regard to which \”liturgies\” (as you say) according to which rite did the pope wrote that? We all know the answer.

  21. TMG says:

    Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the TLM as being wanted by anyone other than “…people who have been formed in this liturgy”. I personally know young adults who’ve just attended the TLM for the first time and love it because it is “reverent”. Having recently returned the TLM after a decades-long absence, due to Summorum Pontificum “allowing” the oppressed TLM to once again be freed from its widespread suppression, how gratifying it would have been had the Holy Father chosen to further promote it instead of a response aimed at TLM-hating clergy which gives the impression of asking them to placate “…these people…” and throw them a bone.

  22. Ed says:

    Perhaps I’m reading too much into the comments, but the Pope did say that there was no contradiction between the EF and the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council. A reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium (which His Holiness has asked us to do!) suggests that the OF is not quite what the VII Fathers intended.

    99% of you are far more knowledgeable than I. I submit to your interpretations!

    God be praised, now and forever, and forever!

  23. liturgyfan: That’s sophisticating at its best!

    I assume you meant to say “That’s sophistry at its best!”

  24. liturgyfan says:

    @ Henry Edwards

    Yes, I meant “sophistry“. Thank you! My english is not very good.

  25. Dan says:

    “What was BXVI supposed to say? “I issued the Motu Proprio because the new liturgy stinks.”

    RBrown: Yes.

  26. Dominic says:

    Ed, it depends what you call the OF.

    If by the OF, you mean the Clown Masses, or even the fare that is served up for most of us in parish churches, then of course there is a contradiction between it and the Extraordinary Form.

    However, the OF can also be celebrated in a way which, while certainly different in some respects from the EF, is more clearly shown to be in continuity with it (bearing in mind too that the liturgy has never been a static entity). For example, the OF can be completely (or mainly) in Latin, ad orientem, using EP 1, Holy Communion received kneeling and on the tongue, no girl altar servers, reverent, etc. It seems clear that the Holy Father wishes the OF to be celebrated more in this way so that its continuity with the EF is more clearly seen.

  27. Valerie says:

    watch the Mass in Paris, on http://www.ktotv.com

    it was amazing. This is all I can say, great devotion of the french people, beautiful organ music, choir, hymns
    salve regina at the end.

    Kyrie, Gloria and Pater Noster in latin.
    Gospel chanted as well as some part of the Mass

    NO CLAPPING during the homily or the Mass. ( only at the beginning after Monseigneur Vingt-Trois and after Mass)

    A great Mass, very reverent and an incredible silence of 200,000 people in Paris attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
    The homily was straight to the point: THERE is nothing more important than the Mass.

    Great reminder, when in my diocese I heard that to receive First Communion, priests and catchists require ONE MASS per the month.

    May the Virgin Mary protect France from idolatry, and may the pope encourages the youth to see more to Catholiscim than social work.

  28. It’s interesting he talks about how litrugy needs to develop organically.
    That seems to say something when you look at the fact that the Novus Ordo was created by a committee with very little connection to the history of the liturgy in the West.
    I just wish we didn’t always have to read between the lines to get this.

    Yet, I also have to agree with Jordanes. That is one point that the Pope was trying to make in his accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum: that priests need to say the Novus Ordo according to the books and quit making things up. It’s only then that we’ll see what the new Mass has to offer. As for a Novus Ordo done as traditionally as possible but still “done by the books,” honestly, in all my 35 years, I have probably never seen that.

  29. Brian Day says:

    Rorate now has the complete text posted:
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/09/pope-benedict-on-summorum-updated.html

    I know that this is a “me too” post, but the statement “It is a small group, given that it presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture.” As our host and others have often mentioned, many young families are attracted to and attend the EF of Holy Mass. This statement is glaring. Even looking in the context of the entire answer, the statement is odd.

  30. Jbrown says:

    The whole statement is odd and jarring, contradicting the motu proprio itself. Now stable groups will have to prove they are 1. small, 2. formed in Latin and 3. in a ‘certain culture’. Since we may never actually see a clarifying (i.e., enforcing) document, this may simply backslide into the old routine of finding sympathetic bishops and priests, and avoiding those who view traditionalists as an annoyance merely to be tolerated until they finally die out. That is EXACTLY how the French Bishops by on large see things, along with Bp Trautman, etc. It is very saddening to be told that I am merely to be tolerated, as if there is ANYTHING WRONG with wanting the UNABROGATED Mass of 1962 offered in lieu of the vast majority of abuse-ridden, or otherwise ‘banal’ and ‘man-centered’ liturgies which, according to our own Holy Father, have largely caused the crisis of Faith. Perplexing, saddening and very concerning for the future.

  31. Paul Haley says:

    The holy father is trying to bring both factions together – traditionalists and modernists and he will not throw the baby out with the bath water. He is convinced that both forms can exist simultaneously but I suspect that will not happen, at least in my lifetime. Remember that he is in France, a country not exactly thrilled with the motu proprio and whose bishops fought it tooth and nail. For myself, I believe the two forms cannot exist simultaneously for they are so different. But, who am I? He’s the pope.

  32. Dan says:

    “It is a small group, given that it presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture. But it seems to me a normal demand of faith and pastoral concern for a bishop of our Church to have love and tolerance for these people and permit them to live with this liturgy.”

    My family and I have had next to no formation in Latin yet we assist at the Gregorian Rite Mass for the simple reason that I understand what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is now.
    37 tears in the Novus Ordo and I had maybe a vague understanding at best.
    Three years at the TLM and I can finally say that I understand. And this with barely any Latin formation.

    Well, at least tolerating the Mass is better than intoleration.
    Though, at least in my diocese this is only in theory because just a token “toleration”, is extended to the mass of every single canonized saint.

    Maybe now we know why His Holiness has not offered one single Gregorian Mass in public since issuing Summorum Pontificum.
    God bless our Holy Father!

  33. Maureen says:

    Um, guys, you are being a bit rigid in interpreting what “formation in Latin” means. In this case, it means “doesn’t run screaming”.

    Honestly, the Church has never demanded much in the language skills department; it encourages it but doesn’t claim it as necessary for salvation. So even if a congregation can follow along less than an anime fan watching her first untranslated TV episode, they’re formed for going to Mass.

    (Incidentally, anime fans that don’t know any Japanese at all have historically done a pretty good job of figuring out the plotlines and who’s in love with whom. Language isn’t that much a barrier.)

  34. Warren says:

    Friends, I respectfully suggest we avoid baseless accusations and idle speculation. There is great temptation to do both if we allow our respective biases (preferences, inclinations) to override reason with regards to the Divine Liturgy. One can look realistically on-the-bright-side by acknowledging the positive effects that the EF is having on people’s (misguided) attitudes while acknowledging that the ordinary form of Mass is the Mass of Paul VI. However, and here I am just throwing this out for comment, isn’t it a bit unrealistic to assume the EF will become the “ordinary” form? Restorationists, I humbly submit, might be living a pipe dream. Is it not realistic to recognize that we are in the midst of a balancing of the equation, a transition toward what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council actually envisioned? Perhaps it will take another Pope Saint Gregory and a second Trent to enact one universal liturgy for the Church, understanding of course there will likely be provisions for forms which have existed for centuries. The process will take several hundred years.

    As an aside, I hope people will stop chiding good Pope Paul VI about the introduction of the renewed Liturgy. We are witnessing in this day a recognition that Pope Paul VI had real prophetic vision with regards to human sexuality and morality (Humanae Vitae) and, I submit, equally startling prescience of the need for a renewed liturgy that, abuses aside, is a master stroke of the Holy Spirit. The vernacular has brought the Church, again, to the people, that is, the non-christian people awaiting the Gospel. As a lover of Latin I really do appreciate the EF. It is important to admit that OF is the norm, and when celebrated according to the rubrics the OF is the God-willed vehicle of the New Evangelization.

  35. RBrown says:

    “What was BXVI supposed to say? “I issued the Motu Proprio because the new liturgy stinks.”
    RBrown: Yes.
    Comment by Dan

    Then he would be failing as a leader.

  36. SARK says:

    The Holy Father’s comments represent an unwlecome dose of reality for all those of us who have engaged in the wishful thinking that this Pope is at heart a traditional Pope.

    In fact we now know that he thinks that Tradition is not to be promoted as a solution to the crisis in the Church (which is so desparately needed in France especially) but only tolerated because there is a small group of individuals with a particular formation who like the old mass. How does this differ from the position taken by Pope JPII?

    Was Bishop Fellay wrong when he said that this is “a perfectly liberal Pope”?

    JMJ

  37. Dan says:

    What was BXVI supposed to say? “I issued the Motu Proprio because the new liturgy stinks.”
    RBrown: Yes.
    Comment by Dan

    Then he would be failing as a leader

    No, rather he would be a faithful shepherd as a leader.

  38. Ted Krasnicki says:

    “C’est un petit groupe parce que cela suppose une formation en latin, une formation dans une certaine culture.”
    I would also not put too much into this statement other than that the Holy Father explains why in France the group of faithful attached to the EF are small, and will remain small, and so are no “threat” to the OF. Most Catholics in France still attend the OF in French, and that is the way the French bishops want it. Like in so many places, there is an avoidance of Mass in Latin because it is not generally understood, and “understanding” is quite important for most people today whether one agrees with it or not. So one supposes that the people attending the EF are OK with the Latin, that they have a certain “disposition” (not “formation”) for it. The word “formation” in English is more restrictive than the French sense of “formation”. But to attend an EF also supposes that people have a preference for it, a certain “culture” as it were for it or other wise they would want not attend it. In short, only a very small minority of Catholics today in France prefer and likely will prefer the EF for some time to come, so the bishops need not worry.
    One must remember that of all countries, it is France that is probably most polarised on this issue of the OF vs. the EF. The SSPX is very strong in France, and there are some passionate political overtones to this if one remembers the recent history of St Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris, a politics that is still on-going.
    My only concern is that these words of the Holy Father will be taken out of their French context and be seen as criteria for the faithful attending the EF everywhere.

  39. Emilio III says:

    Was Bishop Fellay wrong when he said that this is “a perfectly liberal Pope”?

    Not only wrong, but dishonest and malicious.

  40. Matt Q says:

    Roman Sacristan wrote:

    “It’s interesting he talks about how liturgy needs to develop organically.

    That seems to say something when you look at the fact that the Novus Ordo was created by a committee with very little connection to the history of the liturgy in the West.

    I just wish we didn’t always have to read between the lines to get this.”

    Yes, RS, but your lips to God’s ears. It’s odd how things like Summorum Pontificum are published but never spoken of again unless asked. There’s never a pastoral madate to coordinate anything. Just look at the English revision of the Novus Ordo. “We don’t intend it to be used right away.” Take your sweet time studying it. You do, you do. You don’t, you don’t. La-dee-da. Just like telling the clergy and Faitful not to Receive because they are in mortal sin yet do nothing actually to stop them. Oh, but the Church takes concrete steps at “greening up” the Vatican. O_o

    “Yet, I also have to agree with Jordanes. That is one point that the Pope was trying to make in his accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum: that priests need to say the Novus Ordo according to the books and quit making things up. It’s only then that we’ll see what the new Mass has to offer. As for a Novus Ordo done as traditionally as possible but still “done by the books,” honestly, in all my 35 years, I have probably never seen that.”

    For the most part, that’s true. At the same time, I can say that I remember Mass as a kid, the Novus Ordo was said almost like it is on EWTN. It was all the silliness which came about afterward further rammed it into the ground–and drives more people away. Three revisions in forty years and each time getting more insipid tells you the mentality of those behind it.

  41. SARK says:

    Dear Emillio,

    Perhaps you could develop your theme a little? Why wrong, why dishonest and why malicious?

    JMJ

  42. FrV says:

    But why placate the French bishops?

  43. Geoffrey says:

    “Just what enrichment could the ‘Clown Mass’ pass on to the Traditional Mass.”

    Obviously none, and I think it is clear that is not what I meant. The Ordinary Form, properly and correctly celebrated (saying the black and doing the red), can indeed influence the Extraordinary Form, and vice versa. Let’s not read into things that just aren’t there.

  44. Matt Q says:

    Emilio III wrote:

    “Was Bishop Fellay wrong when he said that this is “a perfectly liberal Pope”?

    Not only wrong, but dishonest and malicious.”

    )(

    By not backing up what he says beyond just putting on shows, he becomes ineffectual.

    Like you telling your kid not to put his finger in a light socket but doing nothing to stop him, you become an ineffectual and NEGLIGENT parent.

    Short and sweet.

  45. SARK says:

    FrV said – But why placate the French bishops?

    Voila!

    They have turned France into a spiritual dessert.

    The ratio of funerals to baptisms in most NO parishes in France is said to be 5 to 1. In most traditional parishes (i.e., FSPX, FSP, ICK) it is the other way around (1 funeral to 5 baptisms).

    Perhaps what the Pope should say is “dear misguided bishops you have wasted the last 40 years and I want you to learn from traditional Catholic groups – their Faith, their liturgy, their schools and their parishes”.

    JMJ

  46. Chris says:

    I simply cannot understand this obsession with the presupposition of Latin. I really makes no sense to me — nor did our lack of any Latin knowledge whatsoever prevent my wife and me falling in love with the traditional liturgy instantly 10 years ago.

    While I often see signs of hope with our Holy Father, it seems to always be followed with depressing statements. I don’t want to see them as depressing, but I do.

    One step forward toward tradition, three steps back toward modernism. It just never seems to end.

  47. I agree with Jon above who fears that hostile bishopswill use this sneppet for their own ends. As for being put on the spot, were not these questions submitted in advance?

    I have little doubt but that this answer of the Pope’s was tailored to avoid sending the French bishops into a panic but I also wonder how this is being read over at the Ecclesia Dei Commision.

  48. Chironomo says:

    Amen to both Chris and Fr.V..

    Why try to placate those who oopose you? Will they then extend their hands in a gesture to placate the Pope? Will they make an effort to placate the Traditionalists in their midst. I doubt it very seriously. One step forward and three backwards is about it. I’m beginning to lose heart that there is a larger plan in mind, and am beginning to get the impression that the MP was something of a “one-time” deal, meant to express his personal feelings about the TLM, but without intention to take the next step.

    Even if this statement is taken in context, I’m dissappointed not by what he said, but by what he didn’t say! This was an excellent opportunity to make it clear that the MP eliminates the need for permission from the Bishop and allows for the free use of the EF by any Priest who desires to say it, and for any faithful who desire to attend. Instead, by appealing to the Bishops to be “accepting” of this small group, he reinforces their notion that they are still in a position to say “no” if they don’t want to be accepting. This was an opportunity to demonstrate authority, but instead I’m afraid it’s going to be understood as backing down.

  49. Theodorus says:

    The Motu Proprio Summum Pontificum is “simply an act of tolerance” for a small group of people. No matter how you try to interpret what the Pope said, either between lines or in context, he said what he said, and it is very disappointing and discouraging. Should we still hope to see the long-awaited Clarification on Summum Pontificum?

  50. Supertradmom says:

    Firstly, many bloggers see the language as negative, whereas I see it as positive. “Tolerance” in a European context does not mean what Americans take the word as, a slur or a grudging allowing of something. Tolerance is a highly prized condition of openness and the allowance of something other than what is normal or standard.

    The Church is universal, and universal acceptance of the Standard Liturgy, the NO, is the norm. The EF is not the norm, as much as many of us would wish it so.

    I do not see the Pope’s comments in any negative light at all, but as a truthful statement of liturgical status.

  51. Mitch says:

    Sure that’s it, keep placating the French until there is no one to go visit anymore on a pastoral trip….Aren’t they one of the worst off countries in regards to what has happened in the pews after the introduction of the new liturgy? Come on already………….I am saddened that our Holy Father eve if not intentional seemed to marginalize TLM goers again….I am 39 and was not attached to this liturgy before…..I discovered it recently. I do not think I should have to be tolerated if I move to France.

  52. Emilio III says:

    SARK, we may be using two different definitions of “liberal”. I’m going by Cardinal Newman’s definition:

    Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another.

    Even people so misguided as to prefer the OF do not deserve this description, and he is clearly not one of them judging from his writings on liturgy. Bishop Fellay’s statement seems to be intentionally offensive.

  53. Chris says:

    The last thing I want is a “clarification” to come out. The scares me to death.

    While I like to complain, I’ve been putting up with this for 10 years. Imagine those like Michael Davis that fought this fight for 40 years!

    Yes, I’m worried too this was a one-time thing. And I’m tired of trying to read into these states in the “light of this” and the “context of that.”

    They say what they say and that is that. I’m done parsing statements to make them say what I want to hear why almost nothing changes.

    I’m done because I don’t want the dreaded “sour grapes” award. Back to praying for the full and immediate restoration of the traditional Mass and Faith.

  54. Jacques says:

    The great mistake of French bishops is to have obliged us to believe that the 1962 missal was forbidden while it wasn’t, as Benedict XVI said recently.

  55. Brian says:

    Zenit offers a translation of the full ten-minute interview at: http://www.zenit.org/article-23613?l=english

  56. Larry says:

    Benedict XVI is Pope not Cardinal Castrillion. That being said, we need to understand what the Holy Father is trying to do as well as what he is not trying to do. The Holy Father speaks of the enrichment of both forms. That means he perceives the EF to be around a long time, certainly longer than was thought when John Paul II acted to allow the TLM back in the normal operations of the Church. If the group that is raised in the EF continues to grow so will its’ use. The Mass of the 1962 Missal will have to grow organically jsut as it has from the time of Trent until 1962. At the same time to go back and say ok we are doing away with the NO and returning to 1962 would, barring an act of God Himself drives millions of faithful into confusion. The Mass of Paul VI is over 30 years old now. It too has grown organically, and in many places it has blossomed into true beauty. It can grow ever more beautiful as priests grow to understand the beauty that is part of the EF. Many if not most of the people who have come to appreciate the EF continue to attend the NO as well and this is just what the Holy Father seems to understand. Organic growth takes time; lots of time, and there really is no end point until God Himself says it’s over. What is over or soon will be is the clown Mass and the horrific abuses that have been heaped upon the Liturgy over the past 30 years. Does that mean we will all be happy? No it does not. But what is called for is OBEDIENCE and HUMILITY. Jesus Christ promised to guarantee only one man’s teaching authority-Peter. We believe that that promise extends to his successors and his alone. Only those bishops who teach in union with him enjoy the benefits of that authority. Jesus did not tell crowds who followed Him nor even the disciples outside the apostolic college that they had any business in authority. You all have the ability to complain to legitimate authority, your bishop or the Roman Curia or the Pope himself if thigs get too bad in your parish or diocese. If that is not enough then flee that place and come to live in a more orthodox diocese. It sure beats getting your blood pressure worked up over something over which you have very little control. Remeber you can’t offer God your hatred and contempt on Sunday morning; but, you can offer Him your prayers, works and sufferings in union with His Divine Son Jesus who offers the perfect and only acceptable sacrifice to the Father. And He does this inspite of the irreverence or ignorance or even the sins of His priests. Pray and be at Peace.

  57. Geoffrey says:

    “Back to praying for the full and immediate restoration of the traditional Mass and Faith.”

    I don’t understand that. What did Summorum Pontificum do if not grant complete access to the old Mass? Or are there those who want it to completely replace the new Mass? Don’t hold your breath on that one!

  58. Chris says:

    “I don’t understand that. What did Summorum Pontificum do if not grant complete access to the old Mass? Or are there those who want it to completely replace the new Mass? Don’t hold your breath on that one!”

    No, it didn’t grant complete access to the old Mass. It called for it — and in many places hasn’t delivered. And for those of us who had the Mass but no sacraments other than Communion, it’s done nothing for us because it was all strong suggestion and not law with teeth.

    And, yes, there are those of us who pray for FULL restoration — and not just parody.

    Why must you drag me ever toward the sour grapes award …

    This time I’m really done. Starting … now.

  59. John R. Brooks says:

    “Larry” (Dad),
    Did some nice doctor prescribe you some good meds finally? ;-) I am amazed! That was clear, articulate, and non-inflammatory! And urging others to be at peace?! You’ve come a long way, Pop! You are correct. I would further add that urging the French and other bishops to be “tolerant” is realistic. The Motu Proprio has not had much effect at all in some places except to cause bishops and pastors to dig in their heals and pout. Triumphalistic beliefs that the Motu Proprio has arrived and the episcopate and presbyterate are going to just bow down are naive and ignore the realities we have been given examples of on this blog. (I.E. bishops and Diocesan Liturgists interfering in or otherwise rejecting or cutailing the new freedoms.) We do still need to be at least “tolerated” in many places. Further, those being tolerated don’t need to take on a ghetto mentality of looking for offense. It is a fact that we are in the minority. It is a fact that the Ordinary form is the form which most people will find accesible simply because it is designed to be. We are not a “party.” Our effort isn’t to compete, but to conserve, and to “live in this liturgy.” If we are faithful to Christ and His Church God will derive the fruit he desires from our labors even if we are not blest to see the day of the harvest.
    John

  60. RBrown says:

    What was BXVI supposed to say? “I issued the Motu Proprio because the new liturgy stinks.”
    RBrown: Yes.
    Comment by Dan
    Then he would be failing as a leader
    No, rather he would be a faithful shepherd as a leader.
    Comment by Dan

    So you’re saying he should use the MO of Paul VI?

  61. Jordanes says:

    liturgyfan said: Come on! That’s [sophistry] at its best!

    No, it’s placing Cardinal Ratzinger’s words in context and then interpreting them. He never specified the Pauline Missal as something banal and man-made. He was talking about how liturgy was being done, how it was being approached, the priest’s attitude toward the liturgy. But he never said the reformed Roman Missal was itself banal and manufactured.

    Say it: In regard to which “liturgies” (as you say) according to which rite did the pope wrote that? We all know the answer.

    He was talking chiefly about Roman Rite liturgies, but ones that were being improvised and ad libbed and added to (which technically are of no Rite at all, except in so far as they take the Roman liturgy as their jumping-off point, and are celebrated by Latin Rite priests). But he did not specify the reformed Roman Rite.

    Now, the process and manner and criteria by which the Roman Rite was reformed, and the extensive reform itself, has been and I think should be criticised — but it’s not at all apparent that’s what Cardinal Ratzinger was doing in his comment about banal, manufactured liturgy.

    Theodorus said: The Motu Proprio Summum (sic) Pontificum is “simply an act of tolerance” for a small group of people.

    in France.

    He was asked to say something to those in France who fear the motu proprio. We can’t take him to mean something he obviously couldn’t have meant.

    No matter how you try to interpret what the Pope said, either between lines or in context, he said what he said, and it is very disappointing and discouraging.

    He said what he said, and there’s nothing disappointing and discouraging about it.

    Should we still hope to see the long-awaited Clarification on Summum (sic) Pontificum?

    Yes.

  62. dark_coven says:

    Just my opinion,

    Very “disappointing”, SSPX stay where you are. Never have I seen the Papacy lost of all it’s power, and giving in to the pressures of those opposing Tradition. I cannot “judge” the Pope but I can certainly speculate that he is trying to appease and “win” back the “SSPX” of the left. I disagree with the Holy Father that the present Novus Ordo is an organic development of the Liturgy of the Roman Rite, and that it is the ordinary form of the Liturgy. I pray for our Holy Father that the Holy Spirit guide, protect, and enlighthen him. But I certainly agree with Christopher Ferrara that as long as the Holy Father doesn’t celebrate the Tridentine Mass, resolved the doctrinal issues specifically, then I think the SSPX just have to stay put (but should quit their overarching tantrums.) He should stop sitting on the fence. We need a strong “post-modernist” (that is opposing modernism), traditionalist pope, and as much as I believe that this present Papacy has a lot to offer to traditional Catholics and the liturgy, I pray that our next pope would be more of a Pope St.Pius X, or a Leo XIII.

    Instavrare Omnia In Christo

  63. Anne says:

    He has never hidden anything before becoming pope or since he’s become Pope.

    In his memoirs, My Life, Memoirs 1927-1977 [published in English as “Milestones”], published ten years ago in France at Fayard, Joseph Ratzinger in regard to the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council:

    “I was dismayed,” he wrote, “at the ban on the old Missal, since such a development had never been seen in the history of liturgy.” (…)

    “A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy” (…)

    “This is why we need a new liturgical movement which will call to life the real heritage of the Council.”everything suggests that this “new liturgical movement” is well and truly launched. Benedict XVI does not envisage disseminating it by way of regulations, but by the force of example.”

    In light of what he has said in the past and recent times I take him at his word. Take first two lines of what he has said here:

    “An allowance for the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal is in no way a return to the past, but rather an expression of pastoral concern, says Benedict XVI.”

    He’s dismissing “pastoral concern” aka excuses and telling them to start with the TM already (read the second paragraph above). I love this Pope – he gets it and I’ve got total confidence he’ll bring the dissenters to heel.

    PS: I find it remarkable that the dissenters had no “pastoral concerns” about the clown, and potato-head masses. I’m sure it hasn’t passed unnoticed by the Pope either.

  64. Supertradmom says:

    Caritas is what disappears when the TLM becomes the focus of attention here. Why is it that the most inappropriate and hasty words are used when the topic is our Holy Mass? Just wondering….

  65. Jbrown says:

    Jordanes,
    Simply because you say there is nothing disappointing or discouraging in his words doesn’t make it so. I am personally disappointed that he has seemingly proffered what Fr. Z has called the “party line” in time past, namely that those who prefer the traditional Mass are small, insignificant and perhaps merely tolerated. Indeed, we have added the concept of the grounding in Latin and the reference to a ‘certain culture’, presumably outside the mainstream (perhaps eccentric?). I cannot understand how these words would not be in some small way discouraging to priests struggling to find ways to offer more traditional Masses while their bishops oppose them, or to laymen fighting open disobedience to the DOCUMENT Summorum Pontificum. Whether or not the Pontiff himself personally has invested any enforcement authority (despite the actual words of the document) with Cardinal Hoyos remains to be seen, and I have my doubts. A year has passed and there is not one single word of what a ‘stable group’ is, or whether priests must pass rubrical and Latin tests, or even if priests may schedule regular Masses in the absence of small, insignificant groups which are grounded in Latin.

  66. Aine says:

    sorry, it is http://www.ktotv.com

    the beginning hymn is great, hopefully they won’t bring the band from the youth evening prayer last night :-((
    Comment by Valerie — 13 September 2008 @ 7:20 am

    A great link – thanks Valerie. Are you in France and if so are the Churches as empty as the media likes to portray at every opportunity?
    I thought it was all beautifully done and with such reference. Lots of kids and fervor from what I saw at your link and EWTN.

    An example in the Daily Telegraph – London:
    Bells tolled across Paris to greet the arrival of the leader of the world’s one billion Roman Catholics, whose four-day visit comes as France faces a freefall in the number of churchgoers despite its deep Christian heritage
    Picture: REUTERS
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/2825797/Pope-Benedict-XVI-visits-France-and-meets-Nicolas-Sarkozy-and-Carla-Bruni-Sarkozy.html?image=2

    PS: I posted the above post under Anne but someone else is also posting under the same name so I’ve changed mine to the Gaelic.

  67. Jordanes says:

    Jbrown said: Simply because you say there is nothing disappointing or discouraging in his words doesn’t make it so.

    True, and simply because someone says there is something disappointing or discouraging doesn’t make it so. Disappointment and discouragement over the Holy Father’s comments
    are groundless. There is no reason to give his words the negative construal that you prefer.

    Why should anyone find his words disappointing and discouraging? It’s nothing he and others haven’t said before. Was it disappointing and discouraging then?

    I am personally disappointed that he has seemingly proffered what Fr. Z has called the “party line” in time past, namely that those who prefer the traditional Mass are small,

    They are certainly small in number, compared to the Church overall.

    insignificant

    He said nothing of the sort.

    and perhaps merely tolerated.

    He didn’t say “merely.”

    Indeed, we have added the concept of the grounding in Latin

    The proper word here is “formation” or “training,” not “grounding.”

    and the reference to a ‘certain culture’, presumably outside the mainstream (perhaps eccentric?).

    Well, obviously outside the mainstream, but there’s nothing in his words to suggest he thinks those who are attached to the traditional Latin liturgy are eccentric.

    But if the shoe fits, I guess . . . . Or if you insist on wearing the shoe even if it doesn’t fit and even if no one has given it to you to wear, well, be prepared to get blisters.

    I cannot understand how these words would not be in some small way discouraging to priests struggling to find ways to offer more traditional Masses while their bishops oppose them, or to laymen fighting open disobedience to the DOCUMENT Summorum Pontificum.

    Why would priests who are experiencing persecution or harassment become discouraged when they hear the Holy Father tell their bishops to stop it, to start being tolerant and charitable?

    Whether or not the Pontiff himself personally has invested any enforcement authority (despite the actual words of the document) with Cardinal [Castrillon] Hoyos remains to be seen, and I have my doubts. A year has passed and there is not one single word of what a ‘stable group’ is, or whether priests must pass rubrical and Latin tests, or even if priests may schedule regular Masses in the absence of small, insignificant groups which are grounded in Latin.

    Pray for more patience, Jbrown. One little Vatican agency with a small staff handling hundreds and hundreds of cases pouring in over the past year, and you wonder what’s taking them so long?

  68. SARK says:

    Dear Emilio III,

    Your wrote – “I’m going by Cardinal Newman’s definition: Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another.”

    According to this definition Bishop Fellay probably failed to nuance his description of the Pope’s attitude to the Catholic Faith vis-a-vis other religions sufficiently. Although some of his recent statements in this regard are to say the least confusing.

    However, given the fragmentation in the church following VII, where multiple and mutually incompatible interpretations of Catholic doctine (each with its own theology and ecclesiology – Modernist, Pentecostalist, Traditionalist etc) are promoted as legitimate we perhaps require a slight development of +Newman’s definition may be required: –

    “Liberalism in Catholicism is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in any one of the multiple existing intepretations of the Catholic Faith, not withstanding the fact that each interpretation is often diametrically opposed and mutually incompatible to the others, to the extent that – in extremis – they constitute in essence different religions”.

    Perhaps this is also what +Fellay was speaking about. Interested in your thoughts.

    JMJ

  69. Matt Q says:

    Larry wrote:

    “Benedict XVI is Pope not Cardinal Castrillion. That being said, we need to understand what the Holy Father is trying to do as well as what he is not trying to do. The Holy Father speaks of the enrichment of both forms. That means he perceives the EF to be around a long time, certainly longer than was thought when John Paul II acted to allow the TLM back in the normal operations of the Church. If the group that is raised in the EF continues to grow so will its’ use. The Mass of the 1962 Missal will have to grow organically jsut as it has from the time of Trent until 1962. At the same time to go back and say ok we are doing away with the NO and returning to 1962 would, barring an act of God Himself drives millions of faithful into confusion. The Mass of Paul VI is over 30 years old now. It too has grown organically, and in many places it has blossomed into true beauty. It can grow ever more beautiful as priests grow to understand the beauty that is part of the EF. Many if not most of the people who have come to appreciate the EF continue to attend the NO as well and this is just what the Holy Father seems to understand. Organic growth takes time; lots of time, and there really is no end point until God Himself says it’s over. What is over or soon will be is the clown Mass and the horrific abuses that have been heaped upon the Liturgy over the past 30 years. Does that mean we will all be happy? No it does not. But what is called for is OBEDIENCE and HUMILITY. Jesus Christ promised to guarantee only one man’s teaching authority-Peter. We believe that that promise extends to his successors and his alone. Only those bishops who teach in union with him enjoy the benefits of that authority. Jesus did not tell crowds who followed Him nor even the disciples outside the apostolic college that they had any business in authority. You all have the ability to complain to legitimate authority, your bishop or the Roman Curia or the Pope himself if thigs get too bad in your parish or diocese. If that is not enough then flee that place and come to live in a more orthodox diocese. It sure beats getting your blood pressure worked up over something over which you have very little control. Remeber you can’t offer God your hatred and contempt on Sunday morning; but, you can offer Him your prayers, works and sufferings in union with His Divine Son Jesus who offers the perfect and only acceptable sacrifice to the Father. And He does this inspite of the irreverence or ignorance or even the sins of His priests. Pray and be at Peace.”

    )(

    How cool, Larry. Didn’t know you could read the Pope’s mind. You just summed it right up. Thanks.

  70. Fr. Angel says:

    I don’t understand why the Pope’s words cause some to be so quickly discouraged and upset. Valerie pointed out what the Pope is dealing with in France, and context is important. It is not parsing or making excuses for the Pope to state that his words must be geared to his audience.

    If the bishops in France glorify “tolerance” then the Pope on his plane has successfully confronted them. 1) The panic about the EF is “groundless.” 2) Those who ask for the EF are a small group, and not acceding to their request is to ignore them. How pastoral is that for those who glorify themselves as the shepherds of the minorities and the outcasts? 3) For those who glorify themselves as being the true apostles of Vatican II, a poignant reminder. The EF was the only Mass of Vatican II and therefore the “groundless” attitude of those bishops who think that to love Vatican II you must reject the EF. 4) These bishops love to speak of facing “reality” and being ready for new developments. Well, if they cannot allow the OF to be mutually enriched with the EF, what does that make them?

    It makes them intolerant, rigid, out of touch, unpastoral, and NOT keen to the “signs of the time” in which even the OF cannot be in amber but must make way for enrichment from the EF.

    I call this Papa Ratzinger using the media to paint the liberal clergy with the same colors with which they paint orthodoxy and I say it is about high time the liberal doctor got a spoonful of his own medicine in the mouth! I call it another stroke of papal genius–undertaking the reform of the Church not with warfare and agression, which would only paint the liberals with an aura of martyrdom. Rather, the Holy Father is challenging and confronting his liberal clergy but with convincing logic meant to win them over and encourage the ignorant Catholic to see the reasonableness of papal claims.

  71. Crux Australis says:

    With most respect: a faux pas of H.H. Benedict XVI?

  72. Valerie says:

    There was no faux pas at all. The pope is telling mainly the bishops of France to let the people who love the Tridentine Mass ALONE. That is what tolerates means in our French culture. When you tolerate you let people be, let them in peace, do not descriminate them.

    It is a bit like when Bush spoke about crusades with the war on terror. My concitoyen thought he wanted the crusades with eveything around it, like the inquisitions and everything negative that the public education forces the youth in swallow.

    here is an article I just found which summurizes what the Pope told our Bishops.

    I thought he was straight to the point”
    renew catechese
    encourage vocations to the priesthood and religious life
    don’t fuel tensions, let the one who love the tridentine have the Mass, everybody should have their place in the church, serve toward unity
    don’t give communion to the divorsed remarried ( that was a good one, I had to fight that one 15 years ago with family members)
    condamned the benedictions of of illegitimes unions
    emphasized the Christian roots of Europe

    that is what I remember. It was great. as we say in france our bishops have “du pain sur la planche.” (they have many loaves of bread to cut now…

    Did anyone saw the Masses? they were reverent, with the Gospel chanted, use of latin Hymns.
    today the pope recited the Angelus in latin. The music had nothing to do with what you heard in the stadium in America when the visited. No bongos, no guitars. A few applauses which were discouraged either by the shush of priests or the pope continuing with his homily.

    I have read a few comment of french people, who see hope again with our pope. Our clergy got rid of our statues, our processions, and people are vocal now about it when they see that indeed our faith has not passed.
    reporters said our youth wants silence, prayer and spirituality and they finally found it with our Holy Father.

  73. Valerie says:

    oups sorry for maladroit english…
    in my haste and enthousiasm I forgot the link on the article :

    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/14/europe/EU-France-Pope-Latin.php

    You can now see the address of our pope to the bishop:
    http://www.ktotv.com/cms/videos/fiche_video.html?idV=00040869&vl=video_nouveautes

    about my comment on Bush, I am not opening a can of worms but I just want to say that when we translate we can misjudge the real meaning of the word without a culture and context.

    it is clear enough: the pope wants the bishops to let go.

    Vive le Pape, that is all we want.

  74. Valerie says:

    Anne,

    I was living in France 15 years ago, I went back a few months ago, I would say nothing had changed much, in our little country village youth has left the church, very few family are there.

    Our churches are deserted, but I am convinced it is the consequence of a lack, a void in teaching the truth of the Catholic church.
    I had a thirst to know it, and your country the USA and its catholic made me rediscover my catholic heritage and made me proud again. France is so rich in christianity that I am not ashamed to boast about it.
    the reverence and the devotion of my people was clear today, and gave me hope and pride again.

  75. Fabrizio says:

    Folks,

    1) always check translations

    2) always THINK about what the Pope is saying to whom, where and when and why on the base of what background and record

    3) always trust the Holy Father and…grow up!

    http://www.zenit.org/article-23621?l=english

    From the Pontiff’s Address to French Bishops:

    Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity!

    He has to preserve unity in truth, not to score points for some party, and he’s in France, guys..FRANCE! You guys have an idea of what mess France is?

    Corruptio optimi pessima

  76. TJM says:

    I tend to agree with the commentators who suggest His Holiness has painted the French bishops into a corner, hoisting them on their own petard of “Tolerance.” This reminds me of what an older priest friend of mine used to say, “There is no one more illiberal than a liberal.” Amen. Tom

  77. Matt says:

    The Holy Father’s language is regressive. It harkens back to the old pre-MP days. I especially do not like the term “tolerance”…one only tolerates an evil.

    Is the Pope saying to this French audience that the Traditional Mass is a necessary evil that we must tolerate for the good of the Church?

    I also do not like the characterization of Traditionalists being a “small” group formed in a “certain culture”. Back to the Ghetto?

    So much for the Marshall Plan, Father Z.

    The Pope is simply not speaking consistently and firmly. He is waffling.

    I would like to know which Pope I am going to be getting when I wake up in the morning, so I don’t keep getting these surprises.

    Pope A – Traditional Benedict
    or
    Pope B – Modern Benedict

    This is all becoming very tiresome.

  78. Brian says:

    Fabrizio, Thank you for that reference.

    “In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which THIS DUTY IS TO BE EXERCISED, . . . I am aware of your difficulties, but I DO NOT DOUBT that, within a reasonable time, YOU CAN FIND SOLUTIONS satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. EVERYONE, without exception, MUST BE ABLE TO FEEL AT HOME, and never rejected.”

    i.e., the motu proprio “est simplement un acte de tolérance.” I do not doubt that you will fulfill its conditions.

    Very encouraging.

  79. Jason Keener says:

    In his accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict wrote, “It behooves ALL of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”

    His Eminence, Cardinal Hoyos, recently stated that the Traditional Latin Mass is for all Catholics and should be available in all parishes.

    Now the Holy Father is stating something that seems different from earlier statements, “This ‘Motu Proprio’ is simply an act of tolerance, with a pastoral objective, for people who have been formed in this liturgy, who love it, know it and want to live with this liturgy,” he said. It is a small group, given that it presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture.”

    This certainly raises some interesting questions:

    Is the Traditional Latin Mass really to be promoted everywhere in the Church, or is the Extraordinary Form just for the few who have a special attachment to it?

    Does appreciation for the Traditional Latin Mass really presuppose a formation in Latin? Most people who I know who attend the Extraordinary Form have no training in Latin. The riches of the Extraordinary Form seem to transcend language.

    Does appreciation for the Traditional Latin Mass really presuppose a formation in a certain culture? It has been my experience that after some experience with it, both housewives and scholars can love and appreciate the Traditional Latin Mass.

    Is the Holy Father implying that only Catholics with a background in liturgy can understand the Extraordinary Form and benefit from it? Is the experience of praying the Traditional Latin Mass only for those Catholics who are accustomed to serious and rigorous prayer? Is the Traditional Latin Mass only for those Catholics with a refined taste in music, vesture, and liturgy?

    I raise these questions only in the pursuit of charitable dialogue in order to better understand what the Holy Father means. In the end, I joyfully submit to whatever the Roman Pontiff teaches.

  80. joy says:

    OK, here is the relevant part of the text of the Holy Father’s actual address to the French bishops

    Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do no t doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity!

  81. Jordanes says:

    Matt, Jason Keener, please read the previous comments here. They will answer your questions and concerns about the Holy Father’s remarks on the plane. Your fears are as groundless as those of the French Catholics who worry that the motu proprio is regressive.

  82. Larry says:

    Matt,

    I’m not into reading minds just books.

  83. SARK says:

    Dear Fabrizio,

    You probably meant – always trust the Holy Father and ‘shut up’ rather than ‘grow up’ but your manners got the better of you. But surely discussion of the Pope’s comments are legitimate given all that is at stake for the Church at large and also of course for individual souls.

    The situation in France is not as straight forward to assess as you say. Yes modernist France is a spiritual basketcase but Traditional Catholic France has never been stronger with great fevour, devotion and generosity of spirit shown at every Parish that I have been too.

    In this sense France illustrates in microcosm both the problem that the Pope has to tackle in the Church as a whole (i.e., modernism) and the solution to that problem (i.e., tradition).

    However, should we really expect that his gentle and intelligent words of encouragement to tolerance and generosity will have any effect on the modernist bishops of France? Perhaps a sterner rebuke for the carnage they have created might have been in order if he really meant business.

    Any way its all in God’s hands.

    JMJ

  84. Larry says:

    Let me add a couple of thoughts after re-reading Pope Benedicts comments enroute. Firts, he is going to France and addressing a french audience. His use of two words “tolerance” and “pastoral” I think are keys. It is precisely the French bishops who preach tolerance that have to swallow hard to accept the MP so he is throwing their own words back at them in a friendly manner. They can hardly be honest and disagree with him. His statements concerning the TLM as a small group are quite correct when viewed against the population of the Universal Church. To fully appreciate the TLM on e must have some background in Latin. Otherwise one is only viewing a ceremony and reading it in his or her own language does not really gain the full appreciation of what is being said. That is not to say that one cannot get much out the TLM without knowing Latin. Only that full appreciation requires some formation. The Pope is not making any judgement on how long the Latin Mass may be around. He is merely saying that those who are formed in it and love it should be able to enjoy it without feeling like an outsider. That new devotees are formed all the time only assures that the EF will be able to grow and mature alongside its’ younger sibling the NO. There should be no jousting or childish mistrust on the part of either form. So we need to continue to pray that more and more bishops especially in France, but really all over the world, hear the Pope and follow his desires.

  85. Fr. Angel says:

    Larry:

    You have summed up well the thoughts I was trying to express above. Best of all, you have approached the Pope’s words with confident faith and trust that God is in charge and we have no need to get angry or despair. Thank you also for approaching the Holy Father’s words in such a way that you give him the benefit of the doubt, rather than forget all that Benedict has already accomplished and lash out at the Successor of Peter.

  86. I am glad people are noticing what I wrote at top.

    The context is FRANCE.

  87. Matt says:

    As goes France, so goes the world, Father.

  88. Valerie says:

    Well, here the eldest daughter of the church at her best:
    http://www.ktotv.com/cms/videos/fiche_video.html?idV=00040864&vl=video_nouveautes

    scroll to 22minutes 23 seconds and enjoy.

  89. Jeff Pinyan says:

    When Cardinal Ratzinger called some liturgy “banal” and “fabricated”, and when he spoke of its lack of organic-ness, was he speaking specifically of the Missal of Paul VI, or was he speaking of the abuse-ridden liturgies celebrated “according to” that Missal?

    There appears to be some disagreement here… but I think based on what he has written (Milestones pp. 146-149 and in the preface to Msgr. Gamber’s book), it is the former, the actual Missal itself.

  90. Jordanes says:

    Jeff, thanks for posting the links to Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments in Milestones and Msgr. Gamber’s book. I knew about the preface of Msgr. Gamber’s book, but not the comments in Milestones (or if I knew about them I’d completely forgotten them), and in light of what he says they, I must agree with you and retract and serious modify my previous statements. Whereas his comments in the preface seem to be at best an oblique criticism of the manner in which the liturgy was reformed and the effect that had on liturgy afterwards, the Milestones discussion (and his comments in the preface are obviously related to his comments in Milestones) is a direct criticism, not an oblique one. And interestingly enough, in light of SP, he locates the source of the problem not in that the Missal was reformed, but that it was set as “a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority.” Even then he seems to have been signaling that he thought it was very wrong to try to suppress the old liturgy.

    Still, he says, “There is no doubt this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment,” and he does not call for the scrapping of Sacrosanctum Consilium and the Pauline Missal, but says we need “a renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church.”

  91. Aine says:

    Valerie: Our churches are deserted, but I am convinced it is the consequence of a lack, a void in teaching the truth of the Catholic church.
    I had a thirst to know it, and your country the USA and its catholic made me rediscover my catholic heritage and made me proud again. France is so rich in christianity that I am not ashamed to boast about it.
    the reverence and the devotion of my people was clear today, and gave me hope and pride again.

    I understand as I was lapsed myself, off and on for years, which makes me not well versed on all the goings on within the Church. I watched the Mass at Lourdes – it was beautiful and should give the French faithful and all of us a lot of hope. Sardozy was also very accomodating – the press weren’t too happy I’m sure. What I don’t understand are your Bishops – you say the Churches are empty yet they won’t tolerate the TLM. Don’t you think it’s strange? I just read this:

    Monday, September 15, 2008
    No “servile subordination” between the Pope and the Bishops
    LOURDES (Hautes-Pyrenees), 14 September 2008 (AFP) – Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, president of the Conference of Bishops of France, stressed that the relationship between the pope and the bishops “is not a servile relationship of subordination”.
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/09/no-servile-subordination-between-pope.html

    It’s a response to the Holy Father. It appears kinda nasty, or is it something in the translation that makes us confused, with things French? :) I think we were correct here, in that, the Pope was telling them to bring back the TLM – at least – judging from the response of this Bishop. Do you know this him?

  92. SARK says:

    Dear Valarie,

    Thank you for the heads up on the reply to the Pope by Cardinal Vingt-Trois. He is French and a bit of a bruiser by all accounts – he says publicly what many senior clergy across the world think but only express privately. However, if the Pope does not correct this act of open insubordination then it will stiffen the resolve of other modernist Cardinals and Bishops to continue their blocking of the SP and the renewal. The battle lines are becoming increasingly clear. Has the Holy Father the stamina for the battle and who will fight beside him? Perhaps he might now lift the SSPX excommunications and enter into doctrinal discussions with Bishop Fellay. I wonder what Cardinal Vingt-Trois would make of that?

    JMJ

  93. Theodorus says:

    From Cardinal Vingt-Trois’s comments, I feel that those French bishops can barely tolerate the Pope and Papacy. With this “in your face” attitude, to expect them to tolerate EF and people who love tradition is somewhat unrealistic. It is quite shocking to see that with a mess those bishops have made in the church of France, they can still be so arrogant.

  94. V says:

    I listened to a couple of responses from the clergy and I found interesting that some of them seemed to put eagerly foward the fact that in THEIR diocese they ARE “tolerant”, and the Tridentine Mass is available. I don’t know how much is the Mass truly available, but I found it was a confirmation of what I thought was the meaning of our Holy Father on the plane. There is something epidermal to the French about tolerance. If somebody says one is intolerant, it is insulting. It could be the equivalent as to say that one is racist in America.

    On the zenit tonight they had an article about how the pope was happy about the reception he got in France and about the faith and devotion of the French people. that warms my heart. I cannot hide that when I see comments about “the” French, it is “France AFTER all”, and all that kind of things, seems to me to be condescendence toward my country which makes my blood curl. Just as much as when I hear about prejudice and negative qualifications of the American people.
    The french are French, you guys are American, but we are all Catholics and should help each other. Believe me being Catholic in France is not always a pleasure party.

    Anne, about the churches being empty, we have to be patient, those who based their faith on changing the catholic Church to their sensibilities are running out of time… As someone said there is also an amalgame between those who love the Catholic church and politics. It is not JUST about Msgr lefebvre.

    Pope Benedict appealed to the French with his perfect French, his deep love for our Lady, and his intellect ( among other things). I knew he would. he seem to have been pleased with the French response of the people. :-)

  95. Antiquarian says:

    Jeff Pinyan and Jordanes–

    In the entire preface to Msgr. Gamber’s book, not just the excerpt so widely quoted on the internet, it is clear that then-Cardinal Ratzinger was criticizing not the Novus Ordo itself but the way it was often manifested. I think the clue to where this is echoed in Milestones is that the “missal” is lauded but the “liturgy” we often see is criticized. I read this as yet another negative comment on the many abusive, banal liturgies we have all seen, not a statement about the missal itself.

    I would like to see this passage in context, since the Gamber preface is selectively quoted so widely and has been used by so many to argue a point it does not make.

  96. Matt says:

    Did you bother to read Gamber?

    The Pope endorsed his book….read the book. Gamber skewers
    the New Mass.

  97. Antiquarian: I read this as yet another negative comment on the many abusive, banal liturgies we have all seen, not a statement about the missal itself.

    I am fortunate to attend on six days weekly a reverent OF Mass that admits of no reasonable complaint, at which I am thankful to worship with the same devotion and in essentially the same manner as at the TLM which I attend on Sundays. As I follow daily OF Mass using the EF missalette that I frequently carry for my private prayer and participation, I might even concede a bit more than bare juridical meaning to Pope Benedict’s concept of two forms of the same rite.

    Nevertheless, I’d suggest that finding a solution to the problem of liturgical abuse will require facing the fact that it is the 1970 missal itself which (at least in its “optionitis”) has fostered and even encouraged the serious abuses so many have observed. In the Fontgombault conference proceedings, Cardinal Ratzinger himself said:

    “But in the new Missal we quite often find formulae such as: sacerdos dicit sic vel simili modo … or, Hic sacerdos potest dicereThese formulae of the Missal in fact give official sanction to creativity; … Therefore, it seems to me, it would be an important step towards reconciliation, simply if the Missal were freed from these areas of creativity.” (boldface emphasis added)

    To me this implies that a solution lies at least partly in fixing the new missal itself.

  98. Antiquarian says:

    Matt said, \”Did you bother to read Gamber?\”

    Indeed I did. I also bothered to read Cardinal Ratzinger\’s *complete* preface and not merely the excerpt which has been so misapplied. You?

  99. Antiquarian says:

    Henry Edwards, I agree with much of what you say, and I certainly don’t dispute that His Holiness has called for necessary reforms in the Missal of Paul VI. My point was simply that he is often misquoted, or misinterpreted, in his analysis of the Novus Ordo and its qualities, good and bad. Those who wish he had said something he didn’t aren’t making their case as strongly as they might by being accurate– as he generally is careful to be.

  100. Jordanes says:

    Antiquarian said: In the entire preface to Msgr. Gamber’s book, not just the excerpt so widely quoted on the internet, it is clear that then-Cardinal Ratzinger was criticizing not the Novus Ordo itself but the way it was often manifested.

    You’ve made that argument before, and I was quite skeptical. Upon consideration, though, I thought your position made sense. However, in light of what Cardinal Ratzinger said in Milestones, I simply have to conclude that you’re mistaken. It is not just the way the NO was often manifested that Cardinal Ratzinger was criticising, but the very NO itself, as we see here:

    It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular. But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm.

    Compare those remarks to the Gamber preface, and we have to conclude that even in the Gamber preface he is criticizing the NO itself, the process by which it was created as well as certain of its features, not just how the NO is often celebrated or the current state of liturgy in the Latin Church.

  101. Jeff Pinyan says:

    Jordanes said: … in light of SP, he locates the source of the problem not in that the Missal was reformed, but that it was set as “a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority.” Even then he seems to have been signaling that he thought it was very wrong to try to suppress the old liturgy.

    Right. The problem was not reforming the Missal (which had happened throughout history), but the manner in which it was reformed, which was more like recreating than reforming.

    Jordanes said: Still, he says, “There is no doubt this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment,” and he does not call for the scrapping of Sacrosanctum Consilium and the Pauline Missal, but says we need “a renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church.”

    Right again. Vatican II’s document on the liturgy is waiting to be fully implemented, which the Consilium failed to do adequately (since there are clearly parts of the Constitution that were rendered sterile at the expense of things NOT EVEN FOUND in the Constitution). I think the Pauline Missal can be salvaged in the way we Gentiles were: by being grafted onto the living tree, that is, the traditional liturgy. It needs to be “baptized”, as it were, in tradition. :) In other words, it needs a sense of continuity with the traditional liturgy restored to it. This can be done in varied ways. Ad orientem and Latin and Gregorian chant are some ways; restoring particular prayers and signs of reverence are others.

    Antiquarian said: In the entire preface to Msgr. Gamber’s book, not just the excerpt so widely quoted on the internet, it is clear that then-Cardinal Ratzinger was criticizing not the Novus Ordo itself but the way it was often manifested.

    Is there a place where I could read Ratzinger’s COMPLETE preface to Gamber’s book? I’d like to see for myself.

    As for the context of the quote from Milestones… I’ve already given an awful lot of context! How much more do you wish? I’m going to repost the part Jordanes has already reposted, with my commentary inserted:

    It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal[.] … But more than this now happened [that is, after the Council, there was not JUST a revision, but a rebuilding of the missal]: the old building [missal] was demolished, and another [missal] was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment [the new Missal BROUGHT WITH IT some improvements and enrichments, but he does not say the Missal ITSELF was an improvement or enrichment]; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy [IN GENERAL, past and present] appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm.

    Henry Edwards said: In the Fontgombault conference proceedings, Cardinal Ratzinger himself said…

    Where can I get myself a copy of that?!