Copied from the New Liturgical Movement blog:
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Motu Proprio on a New Liturgical Movement?
by Gregor Kollmorgen
Andrea Tornielli, the most reliable vaticanista of this pontificate, has the following news, which we give you here in an NLM translation:
In the coming weeks a document of Benedict XVI will be released which reorganizes the competences of the Congregation for Divine Worship, entrusting it with the task of promoting a liturgy more faithful to the original intentions of Vatican II, with less room for arbitrary changes and for the recovery of a dimension greater sacredness.
The document, which will take the form of a motu proprio, is the fruit of a long maturation - it has been reviewed by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts and the offices of the Secretariat of State -, and is motivated mainly by the transfer of jurisdiction over matrimonial cases to the Roman Rota. These are the so-called "ratum sed non consummatum" causes, i.e. regarding the marriages which took place in church but have not been consummated because of the lacking carnal union of the spouses. There are about five hundred cases a year, and they mainly affect some Asian countries where there are still arranged marriages with girls of a very young age, but also Western countries for those cases of psychological impotence to perform the conjugal act.
Losing this section, which will go to the Rota, the Congregation of Divine Worship will de facto not be concerned anymore with the sacraments and retain only jurisdiction in matters liturgical. According to some authoritative leaks, a passage of the motu proprio of Benedict XVI might explicitly mention that "new liturgical movement" of which has spoken in recent days Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, speaking during the consistory of last November.
Cañizares told Il Giornale, in an interview published on the eve of last Christmas: "The liturgical reform was carried out with great haste. There were very good intentions and a desire to apply Vatican II. But there was precipitancy... The liturgical renewal was seen as laboratory research, the fruit of imagination and creativity, the magic word then." The cardinal, who had not been unbalanced in talking about the "reform the reform", had added: "What I see as absolutely necessary and urgent, according to what the the Pope wishes, is giving life to a new, clear and vigorous liturgical movement throughout the entire Church", to put an end to "arbitrary deformations" and the process of "secularization, which unfortunately is at work even inside the Church."
It is known how Ratzinger has wanted to introduce in the papal liturgies significant and exemplary gestures: the cross at the center of the altar, communion kneeling, Gregorian chant, the space for silence. It is known how much he values beauty in sacred art and how much he considers it important to promote Eucharistic adoration. The Congregation for Divine Worship - which some would also like to rename [sc. Congregation] for the Sacred Liturgy or for Divine Liturgy - will thus have to concern itself with this new liturgical movement, also by opening a new section of the dicastery dedicated to sacred art and music.
My comments and suggestions: As everyone knows I am clairvoyant, but maybe not. So within this context I offer my suggestions to the Congregation for Divine Liturgy for this New Liturgical Movement and Reform of the Reform within the context of continuity:
As it concerns the Extraordinary Form of the Mass--keep it as it is and for extraordinary purposes to be determined pastors.
As it concerns the Ordinary Form of the Mass:
Keep the reformed calendar and lectionary although minor adjustments may be needed for both and an extra year added, such as year "D" where the EF lectionary can be used during that year, but adjusted to the new calendar.
Have two forms of the "Modern, Reformed Rite:"
A. The Pauline Rite (with all its adaptations and flexibility), but with mandates for the proper decoration of the altar, either ad orientem or pro-populum celebrations, either the vernacular or Latin, kneeling for Holy Communion and receiving on the tongue. The Introit, offertory antiphon and communion antiphon should always be sung or spoken, never substituted by something else musical.
B. The Traditional Rite, which is the order and rubrics of the 1965 reformed missal, in either Latin or the Vernacular, but still using the reformed calendar and lectionary and the reformed prayers, including additional prefaces, Eucharistic prayers, etc of the 2002 Roman Missal, typical edition in Latin and now being revised in English.
Now that would be the reform of the reform but within continuity, not only with the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council, but within continuity of 40 + years of experience.
15 comments:
This is very exciting!
Dare we get our hopes up?
I pray daily that the Church might return to Orthodoxoy, Tradition and the One True Faith. Although great news I don't think I'll remove this from my list of intentions just yet. ;)
To suggest that the Church "might return to Orthodoxy" is a denial of the nature of the Church (she is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic) and of the teaching of the Pope and Bishops in communion with him. It is in the Catholic Church that the fullness of Faith subsists.
To suggest otherwise is to contradict directly the words of Jesus himself who ghave the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from error, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.
I concur, what Templar may have been suggesting is returning to more recent traditional practices (1000 year history) which Pope Benedict has been modeling for the bishops, other clergy and laity. Our current practices as far as not kneeling/receiving in the hand have an earlier tradition, but not as long of a tradition in the Latin Rite. Even ad orientem can be traced prior to the 6th century.
I can go only on what Templar, or anyone else, says. To say that the Church might RETURN to Orthodoxy, Tradition, and the One True Faith means that the church has LEFT these things. That is the position taken by Luther, Zwingli, Elizabeth I, Joseph Smith, Muhammad, and all those "reformers" who thought they were called to lead the Church back to "orthodoxy." It is bunk.
If someone says "I prefer" this or that custom, that's fine. But to say that one's preferences constitute orthodoxy is absurd.
To be part of the One True Faith a belief must have come to the Church through Divine Revelation. Communion practices - kneeling vs standing, on the tongue vs in the hand - are not matters of Divine Revelation. Neither is the arrangement of candlesticks or crucifixes on the altar, facing one way or another at the altar, or using Gregorian chant or some other form of worthy music in the celebration of the mass.
That people continue to attempt to elevate the peripherals to the status of essentials is self-serving blather. It is the same thing the Pharisees did: "You place heavy loads on the backs of others but lift not a finger to help them."
I agree with all you wrote, but just keep in mind it was thus who changed all these peripheral things that caused peripheral things to become the focus of Catholic life. I don't think that was occurring amongst the laity prior to the Second Vatican Council.
"Orthopraxy" would have been a better choice of words. Unfortunately, I have to agree with what Pater Ignotus (for surely this is another manifestation of him)says here. However, such "peripherals" have a direct bearing on the life of the faithful and upon true worship.
God's truth does not change; the expression of it does and it is prideful to insist that error cannot be found in the human expression of those eternal truths.
To suggest that the Church "might return to Orthodoxy" is a denial of the nature of the Church (she is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic) and of the teaching of the Pope and Bishops in communion with him.
Okay... be careful we're not making a distinction without a difference. I think most readers of the comment would understand exactly what this commenter means without drawing the deeper theological conclusion that the Church had abandoned Orthodoxy.
The faithful of the church have always, throughout history, strayed from orthopraxy, and the CHURCH (the institution)has always moved to correct those moves without ever itself having moved from orthodoxy. We're talking about PRACTICE here, not legislation or established custom acknowledged as tradition by the church.
The fact is, the Mass is supposed to have "preserved Latin", given Gregorian chant "pride of place" and if the few rubrics that are remaining are followed, the Priest would be saying most of the Mass "ad orientem". That's what the CHURCH (institution) proposes. What the faithful have put into practice is something quite difference. Orthopraxy is lacking. It is expected that the Church would move to address the problem.
Very good points!
God gave the Holy spirit to the Church to protect it from error, so therefore she never makes any? Is that what the Troll is saying? Two words: Arian Heresy.
The Church is not infallible, nor is it error free. And whether you want to call it Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, Revolution, or Boston Cream Pie I could give a hoot less what your text book definitions are. I'm a bit more low browed, and bare knuckled kind of Catholic. The kind that formed the foundation stones of the Church in America before the liberal debate squads of which you remind me took power. I don't really care what you want to call it, I know what feels right, and much more importantly, when I pray, God knows what I mean, and those prayers always end, "Thy Will be Done" because he knows better than I what I need.
The fact that the answers to my prayers for Orthodoxy, Tradition and the One True Faith have been coming forth fast and furious the past few years, and driving liberals like yourself bonkers may be a mere coincidence, but it pleases me to no end just the same.
Theology is a science and words and phrases are its weights and measures. Use the weights and measures improperly and you end up with a mess. This is true in the lab and it is true in theological discussion.
You may say you "don't care" for specificity, for precision in expression, or for accuracy in using words and phrases. That's too bad, because the Teaching Church does.
"I don't really care what you want to call it, I know what feels right..." God save us from this brand of rank, un-Catholic "feeling" theology. It leads to one thing: destructive individualism.
It would be well for Templar and each of us to always distinguish between the Church and certain people, clergy included, who are in the Church.
The Church is protected from error in its teachings on faith and morals. That doesn't guarantee that people within the Church can be and often are in error. Perhaps this analogy is too simplistic, but I sometimes think that Jesus gave us a Church that, like a train, goes straight and true down the track. People can abandon the Church or jump off the train either on the left or on the right.
Also, we should not confuse political terms like "liberal" and "conservative" when speaking about the essentials of faith and morals. The words applicable there are orthodoxy and heterodoxy.
And, another thought. Reading about the early Church discloses that very early on, the Father of Lies has spawned heretics to attack Church teachings.
Some of us do not like the A,B,C, year cycles. It is un-natural and out of sync with the natural order of time. It becomes like changing the calender every three years so 2012 will really begin in 2014. Better to add another reading to the EF and perhaps continue to suppress the Last Gospel. This way the timing of Mass will be relatively the same. Just my 2 cents as a simple lay person who doesn't like the ABC cycles.
Post a Comment