His Hermeneuticalness has posted something wonderful. Do be sure to visit him.
Here is the post with my emphases and comments:
Summorum Pontificum "a help to everyone"
Many thanks to St John’s Valdosta for highlighting an interview given by Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, to the Italian journal Trenta Giorni. The magazine also has an English translation: "Why I always seek to meet people and engage in dialogue"
When asked about his priorities [attend] in his new appointment, Cardinal Llovera refers to the book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" by Cardinal Ratzinger, seeing it as an important part of his mission to help people to understand his teaching on the liturgy, both in that book and in his personal example. [You cannot go wrong with this.]
Speaking of his experience of the implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, he says:
The first part of the Sacrosanctum Concilium Constitution did not enter the hearts of the Christian people. There was a change in the forms, a reform, but not a true renewal as required by the Sacrosanctum Concilium. [This is the Prefect of the CDW.] At times change was for the mere sake of changing from a past perceived as negative and outdated. Sometimes the reform was regarded as a break and not as an organic development of Tradition.
and he continues:
More than anything else I would say that it was a reform that was applied and above all was experienced as an absolute change, as if a chasm has to be created between the pre- and post-Vatican II, in a context in which “pre-Council” was used as an insult.
It does seem that the idea of the hermeneutic of reform and continuity is becoming an established idea. On the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, he says:
Even if it has upset some people it was an extraordinary gesture of ecclesial good sense. [I am guessing that the CDW will before too long have a special desk to handle the liturgical questions pertaining to the older form.] Whereby a rite that has spiritually nurtured the Latin Church for more than four centuries was recognized as fully valid. I think that this motu proprio is a grace that will fortify the faith of traditionalist groups that are already organically present in the Church and that it will help the return of so-called Lefebvrians… It will also be a help to everyone. [Not just traditionalists. But… for that to be the case, people have to know it. Therefore, people must be exposed to it. Therefore, pastors should offer it even if it is not asked for.]
Be sure to read the rest of His Hermeuenticalness’s excerpts and comments.
Loading ...
Pretty well said.
I’m a little surprised that he needs to be corrected on the “four centuries” but, other than that, he has the right spirit.
Great post, and the Cardinal is right in everything he says. However one must also be honest, stop, pause, and ask, “why was the old form suppressed in the first place?”
The car is back on the tracks, somewhat, but the hard questions remain. Why were traditionalists dangling in the wind while every other language group was coddled? For instance, in my diocese, there are vietamese (sp) masses, spanish masses etc., but the no Latin masses, at all, and Latin is/was the one language which can/used-to-be a language to unite us all.
Think about it, during a pilgrimage, at, say, Chartres, people culled from all over Europe to pray and do penance. They worshipped in one language: Latin. Now Latin is treated with kit-gloves, very strange.
It might be econimical. Some theorize that the Church at Vatican II made peace with the modern world because it wanted to have peace with the modern liberal world (a circle, I know). Think about St. Pius X’s admonishments against modernism, and then think of the average “fun” novus ordo mass? Also, consider that 90 of Catholics now reject the Church’s teaching on birth-coontrol, arguable a mortal sin.
The Church is in a pickle, and is financially surviving off the mortal-sinning contraceptors.
The Church isn’t too stupid to acknowledge that fact, which leads me to believe that BXVI is Saintly in throwing his weight behind SSPX…far from a financial cash-cow for the Church right now…
I only wish more priests in the diocese of Fresno, Ca, including the Bishop would read this blog and commentary.
Central valley wrote:
“I only wish more priests in the diocese of Fresno, Ca, including the Bishop would read this blog and commentary.”
)(
I pray for you up there in Fresno. Same here in Los Angeles, but they know. Even with such wonderful explanations such as the Cardinal Canizares’, they won’t budge. I will not even give in to the possibility the clergy here, or in Fresno, are ignorant of what the Holy Father wishes. They know full well and are doing it deliberately. Mahony’s recent comments on the Tridentine Mass are proof enough. We’re also losing places around here where the Tridentine Mass was celebrated regularly.
I’m not sure how long you’ll be burdened up there in Fresno, but down here, corks will be popping all over the place February, 2011, when we will have a regime change here.
“I only wish more priests in the diocese of Fresno, Ca, including the Bishop would read this blog and commentary.”
The Diocese of Monterey in California, too. I remember when I received a letter from one local priest saying how Redemptoris Sacramentum contained only “suggestions”. We need to pray that the average parish priest will just “say the black, do the red”, and embrace the directives that come from the CDW.
However, a local parish here did just recently replace their glass Sacred Vessels with precious metal Sacred Vessels! “Brick by brick!” :-)
Matt,
Health permitting, we only have a few more years until the retirment of Bishop Steinbock. Contrary to what the Bishop and some priests say, Bp. Steinbock is no friend of traditional catholics. He permitted the EF to continue when he replaced Bp. Madera, but he has distanced himself from the communities in Bakersfield and Fresno and one could argue he has be hostile toward them. My prayer like yours in Los Angeles is that the Holy Father will send us true sheperds to California. Again contrary to what some say, Steinbock and Mahony are classmates and thing alike, they are men trapped in the 1970’s, they are a dying breed in the chruch, thanks be to God. Recently they both had to testify in a civil trial in Fresno regarding an abusive priest. I would like to hear from the jurors when the case is over. In past trials even catholic jurors have said they found the testimony of Steinbock and Mahony hRD TO SWALLOW . When Mahony and Steinbock retire, or leave due to health or legal issues, I pray we are sent orthodox sheperds who will truly follow Rome in action and not just in word.
Malta wrote:
“Great post, and the Cardinal is right in everything he says. However one must also be honest, stop, pause, and ask, “why was the old form suppressed in the first place?”
The car is back on the tracks, somewhat, but the hard questions remain. Why were traditionalists dangling in the wind while every other language group was coddled? For instance, in my diocese, there are Vietnamese (sp) masses, Spanish Masses etc., but the no Latin Masses, at all, and Latin is/was the one language which can/used-to-be a language to unite us all.
Think about it, during a pilgrimage, at, say, Chartres, people culled from all over Europe to pray and do penance. They worshiped in one language: Latin. Now Latin is treated with kit-gloves, very strange.
It might be economical. Some theorize that the Church at Vatican II made peace with the modern world because it wanted to have peace with the modern liberal world (a circle, I know). Think about St. Pius X’s admonishments against modernism, and then think of the average “fun” novus ordo mass? Also, consider that 90 of Catholics now reject the Church’s teaching on birth-control, arguable a mortal sin.
The Church is in a pickle, and is financially surviving off the mortal-sinning contraceptors.
The Church isn’t too stupid to acknowledge that fact, which leads me to believe that BXVI is Saintly in throwing his weight behind SSPX… far from a financial cash-cow for the Church right now”
)(
Malta, your post is very observant and the gist of it may be answered in a pretty straightforward manner. It’s the same as when a fascist, iconoclastic regime comes to power. We’ve seen it throughout history. The Church is the first to be attacked, suppressed and made illegitimate. During the Reformation, look what happened to the Church in England. Any other evil coming to power does the same thing. While the other attacks came from without, it worse in a way because these present attacks are coming from within the Church.
The Tridentine Mass was never abrogated by the Church, but those in power unlawfully did effectively the same thing. Now the Holy Father has his hands full trying to correct everything or as much as core pieces as he can.
Chris,
I’m sure H.E. would agree that the traditional liturgy is an organic development from at least sub-apostolic times. As we both know, the “four centuries” counts from Trent.
TomG: As we both know, the “four centuries” counts from Trent.
Yes, Tom, I know where the reference relates to. I also know that many people, I’m not saying the good Cardinal, but many people say the TLM is only four centuries old as a way to degrade it. This is the Mass of Ages and was perfected in the six century.
All Trent did was codify it for all time — or at least they thought it was codified for all time.
If it please God and His Eminence, might Fr. John Zuhlsdorf occupy said desk? Just askin…
D.v.
I like this question and answer:
” In the media you are known as the “little Ratzinger”. How do you feel about the description?
CAÑIZARES LLOVERA: Well [he smiles, ed.], it will be because both of us have completely white hair… Perhaps the nickname arose between 1985 and 1992, when I was secretary of the Episcopal Committee for the Doctrine of the Faith. For me of course it’s always been a great honor to be compared to Cardinal Ratzinger, even more so today. But let’s be clear, I don’t believe myself worthy. Non sum dignus. Sincerely.”
God bless the him!
Pax Christi tecum
This is so encouraging. As I have quietly explored my new faculties granted by Summorum pontificum I have discovered, to my surprise, that the idea of ‘rupture’ is actually a value for a lot of my fathers and grandfathers in the priesthood and religious life. For me, in my innocence and youth, I always thought that tradition was about continuity and the mutual enrichment of the present and the past. But for many in the generation that raised me in religious life, this is actively not the case.
Fr. Z …
a thought came to me the other day about the Latin language in the Catholic Church. The fact that it is a so-called ‘dead’ language is actually an advantage for the Church. It has been said that language in general has the tendency to corrupt over time and become less complex. Since Latin does not develop, it doesn’t corrupt either. It is fixed and therefore is more grounded, sort of a linguistic reflection of the Church itself. Am i correct in this?
My father, God rest his soul, loved cliches. His favorite was “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
So while I understand that what happened was “not a true renewal as required by the Sacrosanctum Concilium.”, I fail to see why it was thought that any reform or renewal was required at all.
The best anyone has been able to say is something along the lines of “people weren’t paying attention at Mass”. Does anyone really want to hang their hat on the “fact” that the Liturgy was reformed because people got bored with it? Sorry, I do not buy it, but if true, does it call for a reform of the Liturgy or for a reform of the catechis?
I don’t think interwieved is a word…it’s interwoven. Not to be picky or anything. [But you were anyway. Did that feel good? And you misspelled it, too. Not to be picky or anything…]
May I comment on this comment from Father Z as it effects my visit to Ireland.
…. It will also be a help to everyone. “Not just traditionalists. But… for that to be the case, people have to know it. Therefore,people must be exposed to it. Therefore, pastors should offer it even if it is not asked for”
So my story.
My family and I are traveling to Ireland in May to June. We are hoping to be able to assist at Mass as we travel. In Louisiana, our state of origin, we are able to assist at the Ex-Form of the Roman Rite three times a week, and we were hoping to do so likewise in our travels. We are assuming that the Ex-Form will be available at a few places, and we can plan our travels accordingly. At the same time as we are experiencing first hand of the many and storied charms of the Emerald Isle, we will be able to participate in the Usus Antiquor in Ireland, the country which saved civilization!
So I contacted the Dublin Archdiocese which provided a link to http://www.latinmass.dublindiocese.ie
This produced only 1 daily TLM in a most beautiful church in Dublin. On the same page there is a link to the Latin Mass Society of Ireland which indicates a few weekly and monthly TLM’s at irregular times in diverse places. I am very disappointed.
“There was a change in the forms, a reform, but not a true renewal as required by the Sacrosanctum Concilium. More than anything else I would say that it was a reform that was applied and above all was experienced as an absolute change, as if a chasm has to be created between the pre- and post-Vatican II, in a context in which “pre-Council” was used as an insult.”
But it was Rome who created the chasm in question. Rome tossed aside the Traditional Mass in favor of the Novus Ordo.
Rome approved the novel Eucharistic prayers, Communion in the hand (received standing) vernacular Masses that featured pianos, drums and guitars, altar girls, EMs and additional novelties that created the chasm in question.
Rome continues to teach that the above liturgical changes are legitimate…and the majority of bishops and priests continue to hold to the Rome-inspired official party line — that the post-Vatican II liturgical reform (revolution) has spawned a new liturgical springtime for the Church.