As a part of the mystagogy of this liturgy, I start at the end and work toward the beginning. All is needed in this mystagogical catechesis are the photos as these are worth a thousand mystagogical words!
As we were celebrating the Most Holy Trinity by way of the Vetus Ordo, as described in Sacrosanctum Concilium, it is appropriate that this Mass shows us the most mystagogical aspect of this ancient Mass in its Vetus Ordo, no?
Catechesis. The Documents of the Second Vatican Council. III. Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. 3. Rite, sign and symbol
Dear brothers and sisters,
As we continue our catechesis on the Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), we wish to pause and reflect on some of the fundamental elements of the sacred liturgy, such as rite, sign and symbol.
The Second Vatican Council, building on the valuable work of the Liturgical Movement, has helped us to rediscover a truth that was very much alive in the consciousness of the early Church and in the teaching of the Fathers. The rites of the Christian liturgy are not a mere external covering of the sacramental mystery, a collection of arbitrary ceremonies, but are the ecclesial mediation through which the divine gift reaches us. Precisely for this reason, the Council invites us to understand the Mysterium fidei which is realized in the liturgy through rites and prayers (cf. SC, 48). (Keep in mind that SC is speaking about the Mass that was celebrated at Vatican II, not the Bugnini Mass, not that what the pope says doesn’t apply to it also!)
Rite gives shape to liturgical action and, through it, to our lives, generating in us a spiritual sensibility that makes us capable of savouring the presence of God through Jesus Christ. Naturally, this happens if we do not remain strangers or silent spectators (cf. ibid.) with regard to the liturgy, but participate in it with our full selves – body, mind and heart – in obedience to the Lord’s command. Through the sacred rite we are thus formed in listening to the Word of God, in giving thanks and in adoration, in fraternal sharing and in ecclesial communion. We discover that we are an assembly with many faces, united by the same faith. (Let’s face it the Vetus Ordo does this much better than the Novus Ordo which is all over the place in the manner in which it is celebrated. If nothing else was changed with the 1962 Roman Missal, except the use of vernacular for it and the Liturgy of the Word as it is now in the Novus Ordo, the 1962 Missal celebrated in this fashion (actually the 1964 Missal) and we might have experienced a new springtime in the Church, but alas!)
The rite involves us in a well-defined sequence of gestures and prayers, which can sometimes be at odds with our individual tendency towards spontaneity. Its logic, however, is not to constrain freedom within rigid frameworks. On the contrary, with the solemn simplicity of its rhythms, the rite interrupts our frenetic activities, leading us back to what is essential. We thus discover another dimension of action, not guided by calculations of productivity, and another experience of time and space. In the rite we experience a logic of gratuitousness, we find a pause that regenerates the heart, we recognize that we are preceded by divine grace, we learn to live in a rhythm inhabited by the Holy Spirit.
The grammar of the rite is interwoven with the signs and symbols proper to the liturgy. In it, as the Council states, “the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs” (SC, 7). The Catechism of the Catholic Church explores the value of these signs, recalling that “their meaning is rooted in the work of creation and in human culture, specified by the events of the Old Covenant and fully revealed in the person and work of Christ” (no. 1145). The sign of water is emblematic: from the origins of creation to the Flood, from the crossing of the Red Sea to the Jordan, right up to the water flowing from Christ’s side, which becomes a sacramental sign of immersion in His death and resurrection.
“Sign” and “symbol” are terms that are often used as synonyms. In reality, a sign is symbolic when it is able to refer not only to an idea, but to an entire system of meanings and values. In this way, for example, when we are sprinkled with holy water, (herein, the Holy Father falls into the secularizing trap that the Novus Ordo has promoted! Would it not be better, more accurate and more liturgical to say that we are blessed with Holy Water, rather than sprinkled with it? Sprinkling is a secular term, blessing is religious!) our awareness of the gift received at Baptism and our commitment to new life in Christ is rekindled. Secondly, symbols are essentially practical in nature, being first and foremost actions: some simple and common, such as kneeling and exchanging the sign of peace, or more demanding, such as the constitutive acts of each Sacrament. Above all, symbols have a unique performative and transformative dimension, both in relation to the material elements of which they are composed and to those who come into contact with them, engendering a sense of belonging, touching the heart and mind, and giving rise to authentic ecclesial relationships.
In the Apostolic Letter Desiderio desideravi, Pope Francis, echoing a statement by Romano Guardini, identified “the first task of the work of liturgical formation: man must become once again capable of symbols” (no. 44). We need to allow ourselves to be educated by the rites of the liturgy, caring for the beauty of our celebrations with a delicate touch and without arbitrariness, and committing ourselves to an authentic mystagogy. The experience of a living and devout liturgy, accompanied by appropriate mystagogical catechesis, is the best resource for reawakening in everyone that openness to the encounter with God which, in the logic of the Incarnation, can only take place by involving the whole person: spirit, soul and body (cf. 1 Thess 5:23). (Once again, Pope Leo channeling both Romano Guardino and Fr. Z, tells us to read the black and do the red! Pope Leo says it this way: “…caring for the beauty of our celebratioins with a delicate touch and without arbitrariness…!)
My final comment, most humble as it is as it isn’t mine:
I would suspect that 99.9% of the people at the Wednesday audience don’t know what the heck “mystagogy” means and, as is typical, the Church throws out these words that have no meaning for people hearing them. It mystifies them as does the Novus Ordo.
But here’s the most dreaded AI’s description, which is good and would have taken me hours and hours to discover on my own, but with AI only a second or two! Praise AI!:
Just a few years ago, under the Pope Francis regime, EWTN was called out and threatened by the Vatican! Look it up!
I saw ETWN’s coverage of the papal election and I thought that Maria Alvarado did a wonderful job, was quite articulate and impressive.
But ETWN all the way from Hanceville, Alabama’s EWTN founded by an ultra traditional nun, Mother Angelica, has one of it people a new Prefect and a laywomen to boot. Mother Angelica must be laughing in heaven!
It’s the “other” that has almost 42,000 hits that I wonder about!
This is how you design a sanctuary. No double altars! The stunningly beautiful reredos does not contain an additional altar and the altar of Sacrifice looks like one unit with the reredos, although free-standing. It looks like the main altar, not the reredos if it had another altar attached and higher!
Perhaps my only critique would be that the six candlesticks should be behind the altar on the reredos and only lit for Sung Masses on Sundays or Holy Days. Then the altar would have only two candlesticks with the crucifix in the center.
I vacillate on that though.
I copied and paste this Facebook article I found. However, it did not paste the name of the author and when I went back to Facebook, I couldn’t find the original post that I copied! Apologies to the author. My comments after his post.
We should not forget Vatican II saw itself as endorsing a movement already well under way in many places, popular among laypeople & scholars, and endorsing fairly standard views among liturgical scholars regarding what the earliest Roman liturgy looked like.
[NB: Newman's 'Callista' gives a similar picture of what early Roman liturgy was thought to be like.]
But there were alternative approaches to what would come from that movement as pertains to liturgical reform. Some scholars, such as Louis Bouyer, came to see the product of VII's reform as falling short of their intended goals, even as they endorsed Sacrosanctum Concilium as the great victory for their movement.
I cannot help but agree with Bouyer. Being myself firmly in the Bouyer-Ratzingerian camp on the VII reforms, I'd think: Some changes were good & reasonable; others bland & decrease in quality; others inadvertently led to rupture & chaotic abuses. But there was reasonability in the initial aims of the liturgical movement that needs not to be forgotten.
(In fact, let me say too that, despite the picture (above) I agree with Razinger, Bouyer, Lang, etc., that 'versus populum' liturgy has turned out to have largely the wrong effect on everyone. It seems to me the right response would be to reverse this emphasis and reintroduce 'ad orientem' celebrations into popular practice again.)
Some have claimed that I am clairvoyant—who knows. I have no idea what Pope Leo will do to calm down the current liturgical wars that are on many fronts. Thank you Vatican II and Pope Francis.
Somehow I doubt that Pope Leo will abrogate TC and go back to SP, but who knows? I do think he will encourage bishops to be generous about the celebration of the Vetus Ordo. I would hope he would eliminate some of the Orwellian aspects of TC or later communications from Cardinal Roche, like the Vetus Ordo can’t be celebrated in parish churches, forcing its celebrations to shrines and gymnasiums.
As well, the truly Orwellian Roche mandated law, that the Vetus Ordo can’t be advertised in parish bulletins is truly Orwellian and should have been shot down by now.
What do I think that Pope Leo should do? Write a TC type authoritative document that liberalizes the celebratioin of the Vetus Ordo along the lines of Ecclesia Dei of St. John Paul II.
Then, allow the Novus Ordo to have the option of “looking like” the Vetus Ordo’s celebration by simply giving the Novus Ordo what the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship already has and promulgated by Pope Francis!
What is that? You know:
The PATFOTA, the Gradual from the Roman Gradual, the ancient Offertory Prayers, ramped up rubrics for the Eucharistic Prayer approximating the Vetus Ordo’s, the Triple Non Sum Dignus and the Last Gospel. Also, reestablish all the Octaves dropped in the Modern Missal as well as Septuagesima and Ember Days as Divine Worship has done and format a new Novus Ordo Missal to reflect the look of Divine Worship which looks like the Vetus Ordo Missal which includes in the propers the Offertory Antiphon. The Gloria Patri is also reinstated in Divine Worhship for the Introit and the other times this is prayed in the Mass.
The option of celebrating Mass ad orientem and with Holy Communion distributed to kneeling communicants must be made explicit!
It must be made clear that the Novus Ordo may be celebrated in Latin (although the lectionary normally in the vernacular) or it can be a hybrid of Latin and vernacular.
What I suggest and hope Pope Leo will do is a part of organic development of the Novus Ordo that respects its essence and tradition while re-enchanting it with elements of tradition from the Vetus Ordo.
The main fighting points were combatting narcissistic priests who turn the Mass into a way for the priest to entertain his fans or to “improve” the Mass with his own creativity, words, and antics. Often there is also a contest about which priest-celebrant can be the most welcoming, the most sincere and the most pious.
This war also revolved around the lack of unity in how the Novus Ordo is celebrated not only from one diocese to another, but also from one parish to another and even various Masses in the same parish!
For most waging this liturgical war, their motto was/is that the Novus Ordo is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you are going to get!
Well, that all changed with Summorum Pontificum and the expansive celebration of the Vetus Ordo. With the Vetus Ordo today, and more so when it was the Ordinary Mass of the Latin Rite, you know what you are going to get and it is celebrated well, also encouraging actual participation, both externally and internally.
Once those who were waging war on liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo had the vetus Ordo were there isn’t liturgical abuse and there is unity between the various places in which this Mass is celebrated, they could care less about the liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo—they admitted defeat and were happy that they had a decent non-abused Mass to attend in the Vetus Ordo! It brought them liturgical peace!
But now, because of Pope Francis ill-adviced TC, the war is waged to bring it back to the days of Summorum Pontificum. There is little war waging on liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo—for many, that war was lost as there is no hope ever of overcoming the abuses of the Novus Ordo.
I don’t agree. Pope Leo needs to help bishops STOP 🛑 liturgical abuse in their dioceses and even to the point of not advertising those abusive Masses in bulletins.
Do I hear an “amen?”
The important elements in Benedict’s stunningly clear apologetic, I highlight in bold black except for the two paragraphs that would be close to Pope Leo’s heart—unity in the Church, which I highlight in red.
Pope Benedict was the Saint and hero for this unity, not only within the Latin Rite, with its two forms of her one Rite, but also with Protestants and how in brought into full communion with the Church Anglicans, clergy and laity, with the Ordinariate. Pope Benedict is the model for true Vatican II ecumenism, not the feel good, tea and crumpets form of it espoused by those who don’t want true unity but prefer a kumbaya experience of joy and holding hands while praying and singing.
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA”
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
My dear Brother Bishops,
With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.
News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.
This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.
In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions — the liturgical reform — is being called into question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form — the “Forma ordinaria” — of the Eucharistic liturgy. The last version of the “Missale Romanum” prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a “Forma extraordinaria” of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a “Forma extraordinaria” of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.
In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.
It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the “usus antiquior,” will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. 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. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).
Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.
Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.
Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (Acts 20:28).
I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.
Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Catechesis. The Documents of the Second Vatican Council. III. Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. 2. The reform of the liturgy: tradition and development
Dear brothers and sisters, good morning and welcome!
In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, the Venerable Pius XII writes that “the Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded” (no. 59).
In full accordance with this principle, the Second Vatican Council, in the Introduction to the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), recognizes “particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy” (no. 1). The Council assembly was gathered, in fact, with the desire to “impart an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church” (ibid.).
At that moment in history, there was a strong sense of the need for a renewal of the ritual forms through which, for centuries, the Church had glorified God and sanctified the Christian people. Thanks to the Liturgical Movement, the conviction had matured—later expressed by Saint John Paul II—that “a very close and organic bond exists between the renewal of the liturgy and the renewal of the whole life of the Church. The Church not only acts but also expresses herself in the liturgy, lives by the liturgy and draws from the liturgy the strength for her life” (Letter Dominicae Cenae, 13).
To encourage the access of the faithful to the richness of the gifts of grace dispensed by the sacred liturgy, the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium thus indicates, with a very effective phrase, the direction to take: “That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress” (SC, 23).
Pope Benedict XVI grasped in this declaration of intent the “reform programme” of the Council Fathers, “a balance between the great liturgical tradition of the past and that of the future”, noting that “tradition and progress are often clumsily opposed”, whereas “actually, the two concepts merge: tradition is a living reality, which therefore includes in itself the principle of development, of progress. It is as if to say that the river of tradition also carries its source in itself and flows towards the outlet” (Address to participants in the Congress promoted by the Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm on the 50th anniversary of foundation, 6 May 2011).
The Council affirms the legitimacy of this progress, rooted in authentic Tradition, distinguishing within the liturgy “immutable elements, divinely instituted” from “elements subject to change [which] not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it” (SC, 21). Changes of this type have taken place constantly over the centuries in order to enable the faithful to participate fruitfully, through ritual actions, in the Paschal Mystery of Christ, the foundation of the Christian faith. The Church’s worship has thus been “embodied” in the cultural forms of each age and has been able to influence them and even transform them. The liturgy has thus been, for centuries, a driving force for evangelization. Today, this energy must be renewed in continuity with the authentic and living Catholic tradition, that is, in accordance with a dynamic aimed at introducing believers to the fullness of the truth.
It is therefore understandable why the Council Fathers recommended that the revision of the rites, when “the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them”, must be carried out taking care that “any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC, 23). For the good of the entire Church, every reform must always be preceded by careful “theological, historical and pastoral” investigation (ibid.). The Council Magisterium, in this way, thus calls for the avoidance of confusion amongst the faithful, discouraging anyone from adding, removing or altering anything in liturgical matters on their own initiative (cf. SC, 22). The progress evoked in the Conciliar Constitution in no way compromises ecclesial communion: rather, it seeks to confirm and foster it.
I therefore urge all those called to prepare the celebration of the divine mysteries, in particular priests who exercise the ministry of liturgical presidency, to always uphold that respect for the texts and regulations of the liturgy which springs from an inner attitude of openness and trust in God, manifesting humility before His greatness and sincere fidelity to ecclesial communion.
My brief commentary:
It is great that Pope Francis is not mentioned in this particular catechisis but only Pope Benedict and St. John Paul II—the two great liturgical popes both of whom promoted the renewal of the liturgy in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concilium but also were progressive enough to allow the older rites to be celebrated as well, Pope Benedict XVI truly progressive and non-rigid in this regard. We can’t say that about Pope Francis.
The last paragraph is truly important and in Pope Leo paraphrases Fr. Z! The pope tells priests to read the black and do the red!
Pope Leo also calls for the organic reform of the Liturgy:
…in this way, thus calls for the avoidance of confusion amongst the faithful, discouraging anyone from adding, removing or altering anything in liturgical matters on their own initiative (cf. SC, 22). The progress evoked in the Conciliar Constitution in no way compromises ecclesial communion: rather, it seeks to confirm and foster it.
