Pope Benedict said this in 2005: "Moreover, the Congregation for Divine Worship, in close connection with the Encyclical, published the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum as a practical guide to the correct implementation of the conciliar Constitution on the liturgy and liturgical reform."
In terms of Pope Benedict and Archbishop Marchetto's hermeneutic for the correct implementation of Vatican II, that is actually going back to the written documents themselves and implementing the Council, where are we going with this now that we know explicitly for sure this is what Pope Francis endorses as it concerns the Liturgy?
There is a good is an article by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone in the New Liturgical Movement, which you can read HERE in full but which I will quote below in part:
"Some of the directives in these documents [Sacrosanctum Concilium and The General Instruction of the Roman Missal] have been observed in the life of the Church on the local level, but others have been ignored or misunderstood. So I would like to cite some passages to give some examples of where we need to focus our efforts to make our worship more in line with what the Church is asking us to do.
First of all, Sacrosanctum Concilium states at n. 36:
… the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants …
So we can see that it was not the mind of the Council to abolish the use
of Latin in the liturgy by any means; quite the contrary. But a more
generous use of the vernacular was allowed in order to engage the people
in the liturgy more conscientiously. It later has this to say about
music (n. 116):
The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given first place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action.
Again here, the intention of the Council was quite contrary to
abolishing the Church repertoire of sacred music from her worship. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal repeats this passage from Sacrosanctum Concilium at
number 41, and then goes on to add: “Since faithful from different
countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they
know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the
Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the
simpler melodies.” In 1974, Pope Paul VI even issued a little booklet, Iubilate Deo, containing
these more classic chants and sent it to all the bishops of the world
in order to help implement this vision. And how appropriate it is for us
here in the Bay Area, where every Sunday in many of our parishes, and
certainly in Masses at the diocesan level, people from different
cultural and language backgrounds come together to worship...
...Likewise, Latin – which I once heard the late Cardinal Hickey refer to as the Church’s “old vernacular” – has both a practical and symbolic value. The practical value is that it is the common patrimony of all Catholics, and so a way that people of different languages can worship together, using texts and formulas that have been preserved from antiquity. But it also has a symbolic value: precisely because it is our common patrimony, belonging to all Catholics of all cultures and languages – indeed, it is constituent of our common Catholic culture – it teaches us that the liturgy is not ours to with as we will. No, the liturgy is a given; it is our job to celebrate it well and faithfully, not tinker with it for the sake of “creativity” or “self-expression.” This once again is a matter of succumbing to the culture of narcissism. We hear much talk today about “servant leadership.” To have credibility, we have to model that first and foremost at the liturgy: we are the servants of the liturgy, not its creators. This takes a great deal of discipline, restraint and humility on the part of the liturgical ministers, and most especially the celebrant.
Let’s hear more from Sacrosanctum Concilum about music in the liturgy, this time about the use of instruments (n. 120):
...Likewise, Latin – which I once heard the late Cardinal Hickey refer to as the Church’s “old vernacular” – has both a practical and symbolic value. The practical value is that it is the common patrimony of all Catholics, and so a way that people of different languages can worship together, using texts and formulas that have been preserved from antiquity. But it also has a symbolic value: precisely because it is our common patrimony, belonging to all Catholics of all cultures and languages – indeed, it is constituent of our common Catholic culture – it teaches us that the liturgy is not ours to with as we will. No, the liturgy is a given; it is our job to celebrate it well and faithfully, not tinker with it for the sake of “creativity” or “self-expression.” This once again is a matter of succumbing to the culture of narcissism. We hear much talk today about “servant leadership.” To have credibility, we have to model that first and foremost at the liturgy: we are the servants of the liturgy, not its creators. This takes a great deal of discipline, restraint and humility on the part of the liturgical ministers, and most especially the celebrant.
Let’s hear more from Sacrosanctum Concilum about music in the liturgy, this time about the use of instruments (n. 120):
In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things. But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship ... This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.
A very important instruction on sacred music issued in 1967, Musicam Sacram, repeats this passage from Sacrosanctum Concilium, and then adds the following:
MY FINAL COMMENTS: It seems to me that Pope Benedict promoted his theology in a holistic way by all he said and did and the recovery of so many little "t" traditions for the papacy and the Liturgy.63. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.Any musical instrument permitted in divine worship should be used in such a way that it meets the needs of the liturgical celebration, and is in the interests both of the beauty of worship and the edification of the faithful.64. The use of musical instruments to accompany the singing can act as a support to the voices, render participation easier, and achieve a deeper union in the assembly. However, their sound should not so overwhelm the voices that it is difficult to make out the text; and when some part is proclaimed aloud by the priest or a minister by virtue of his role, they should be silent."
His greatest mistake was not codifying what he desired for the Liturgy prior to his abdication thinking that it would jump start an organic development of the Liturgy from the 1962 Liturgy. As Msgr. Guido Marini said of Pope Benedict, "he proposes but does not mandate." My hope is that with the passage of time, what Pope Benedict proposed and modeled will be given a second look and mandated one day.
But when we actually return to the Liturgy document of Vatican II and see how conservative a document it actually is that was actually discarded in the post-Vatican II aftermath using the wrong hermeneutic of the Council, there may be hope for a true liturgical movement some 50 years after the Council.
What will it look like?
--More Latin mandated (I suspect for the fixed parts of the Mass). If it is left to dioceses or parishes to implement the use of more Latin, it won't happen.
--Kneeling for Holy Communion as Pope Benedict modeled.
--Ad orientem or at least the traditional altar arrangement.
--Gregorian Chant and the mandating of the Propers
What Pope Francis brings to the table and is quite necessary is the revival of popular devotions, especially Eucharistic devotions.
5 comments:
It will be very difficult to get the Vat II toothpaste back in the tube. If I learned anything in theology/hermeneutics classes, it is that theological and doctrinal language must be precise and as carefully worded as possible. You would think that a huge conclave of supposedly theologically educated, doctrinally aware Priests could have done better than the vague, amorphous, blandly stated stuff that came from Vat II…which confirms me even more in my belief that it was all quite deliberately vague and ambiguous.
As long as Cardinals like Maradriaga and the other "progressives" who elected this pope have his ear, you won't see real action. Or, what you will see is more reaction against the Vetus Ordo cloaked in terms to make it sound as if "continuity" is being guaranteed.
If it sounds like I don't trust this pope, I don't. I trust even less the people he has surrounded himself with.
'Successor of St.Peter' interprets Vatican Council II with irrationality ?: magisterium still makes a factual error ?
Pope Francis has recommended the interpretation of Vatican Council II according to Archbishop Agostino Marchetto who uses the visible dead inference.
The deceased saved with 'a ray of the Truth'(NA 2) are supposed to be visible-in-the-flesh exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the traditional ecclesiology, is rejected. It is ideological for the pope.It is 'triumphalism'. This is the pro-Left, masonic term.
In his last meeting with some of the Franciscans of the Immaculate on June 10 ( without the founder Fr.Stefano Mannelli and most of the Friars), the pope indicated that the Franciscans of the Immaculate seminary is to remain closed. The seminary was not accepting Vatican Council II with the visible-dead inference. It rejected the heretical version of Vatican Council II, the one with the false premise.The inference produces an irrational, non traditional conclusion.This is the version of Vatican Council II approved by the 'orthodoxy of the successor of St.Peter' .It is also approved by the Jewish Left rabbis.
It may be mentioned that during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII it was assumed that the baptism of desire/ implicit desire referred to cases, visible in the flesh.Then it was inferred that these visible-deceased were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is a factual error. We cannot see the dead.So how can they be exceptions? Yet this error is inferred in the text of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Pope Francis is using this factual error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II ?. It is a break with the past and is appreciated by the political Left whom the pope supports.It is also considered ideologically correct.It is a permit to offer the Traditional Latin Mass for a Catholic priest during this pontificate.It is the denial of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This traditional version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus resulted in Fr.Leonard Feeney being maligned and excommunicated by the Holy Office, and the Archbishop and Jesuits of Boston. Since this former Jesuit priest had to tell a lie.He did not.He was expected to say, that he knew of known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
I liked this quote:
"The lazy priest simply lets things drift off on their own, and get further and further away from what the Church teaches about how we are to worship. This, too, will inevitably begin to affect how and what his people believe, and so weaken their faith. But the pastoral priest will educate his people about what the Church teaches..."
How often have heard that dead things float down river living things swim against it. The priest shouldn't have a to each their own attitude. He must engage and challenge. We are not weak, we can take it. We need a mission.
I love learning.
It seems we will see some real action, one way or the other, tomorrow when the instrumentum laboris for the Synod is released. I for one am very anxious to see what it says.
Post a Comment