At The Catholic Thing there is a summary piece abooot Francis’ trip to Canadia. It starts:
“Well, that’s over.”
You can read it there. It paints a rather pathetic picture and darns with faint praise, the point being that it wasn’t as bad as it could have been and certain aspects were surprisingly mediocre.
There were the usual cringe moments, like with the head dress.
From Le Monde:
At the request of Raymond Gros-Louis, an “elder” from the Huron-Wendat Nation, Pope Francis, his retinue of cardinals and bishops, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Governor General of Canada Mary Simon all placed a hand on their hearts for a welcoming ceremony. Then, in keeping with tradition, this First Nations representative lit a “sacred fire” to “connect” with the four directions and the “four life elements.” He blew a whistle and asked “the grandmother of the West for access to the great sacred circle.” Thus began Pope Francis’ meeting with Canadian authorities on Wednesday, July 27, at the Citadel of Quebec, on the third day of the visit by the Catholic Church’s leader to the country.
“The grandmother of the West”? “Great circle”?
Then, in the inevitable airplane presser, he said something strange things (surprise) about changes of doctrine and tradition. Responding to an RNS (lib) question about changing the Church’s teaching about contraceptives, he danced a bit:
But know that dogma, morality, is always in a path of development, but development in the same direction.
He cited Vincent of Lerins a couple times.
At the same time, in his ramble, he used the word “change” in regard to the Church’s teaching the death penalty (which certain is NOT in keeping with Vincent’s admonition):
Then… and remember, he rambles and his answers seem sometimes like a bag full of cats, but this was in response to something about contraception and changing dogma:
A Church that does not develop its thought in an ecclesial sense is a Church that goes backwards. And this is the problem of so many who call themselves traditional today. They are not traditional, they are “indietrists,” they are going backwards without roots — “That’s the way it has always been done,” “That’s the way it was done in the last century.” Indietrism [looking backward] is sin because it does not go forward with the Church. And instead, someone described tradition — I think I said it in one of the speeches — as the living faith of the dead and instead for these “indietrists,” who call themselves “traditionalists,” it is the dead faith of the living.
Tradition is the root of inspiration to go forward in the Church, always these roots, and “indietrism,” looking backward, is always closed. It is important to understand well the role of tradition, which is always open like the roots of the tree. The tree grows like that, no. A composer had a very beautiful phrase — Gustav Mahler — said that tradition in this sense is the guarantee of the future, it is not a museum piece. If you conceive tradition as closed, this is not Christian tradition. Always it is the root substance that takes you forward forward forward. That’s why what you say above thinking, carrying forward faith and morals, while going in the direction of the roots, of the substance goes well with these three rules I mentioned of Vincent of Lerins.
I think many people who desire traditional Catholic worship will read this with increased alarm, as if it will bear much more increase. It is important to keep it in its context: airplane presser, and about contraception and other defined teachings – not liturgy. However, liturgy IS doctrine. Hence, you see the path of his thought. Does this apply to liturgy? Yes, and no. It is mostly a string of cliches in a context that makes no difference. Still, we get a glimpse of his thought.
I leave you will the image of the Francis and others invoking,
“the grandmother of the West for access to the great sacred circle”,
and wondering what Vincent of Lerins would have thought of that… “in keeping with tradition”.