Below I copy a segment of an interview published by Rorate Caeli of Dom Louis Blanc of Triors, France. He makes sense and is, like me, very conciliatory as it concerns both forms of the Mass and Sacrosanctum Concilium.
You can read the entire interview at Rorate Caeli by pressing its title:
Interview with New Abbot of Triors, 35: Benedict XVI told me that, "in the present confusion, the important thing is to live according to the tradition." "Future belongs to those who esteem brothers with other liturgical sensibilities."
EXCERPT MONEY BYTE:
How is the liturgy in your abbey managed in relation to the two liturgical forms and how did you receive the motu proprio Traditionis custodes?
Your question touches a sensitive point. Our abbey happily lives by the practice that comes from Fontgombault: the Roman liturgy as it is recorded in the ancient Missal. Some modifications have been made over the decades in response to the needs of the Church as expressed by Rome, especially in the beautiful Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium.
When I entered Triors, I found again the atmosphere I loved in my family: unconditional love for the Church and the Pope, absolute respect for his Magisterium, and a careful liturgy. It was only after the year 2000 that I began to become aware of the liturgical debates, at a time when St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI after him had been able to restore a climate of peace. My friends live in both forms. A priest friend of mine from Emmanuel told me that he learned a lot in the abbeys about how to celebrate well. That is why I have never been peremptory on this subject, sure to be in the river of the Church's life. The motu proprio of 2021 seems to me above all a response of the Holy Father to a conflict between the caricatured bangs of the two sides.
"Nothing is more damaging to the liturgy than constant activism," said Cardinal Ratzinger (2). So I receive Traditionis custodes without revolutionizing everything, and I appreciate very much the rich reflections of the letter Desiderio desideravi.
Our bishop has expressed his esteem for me on several occasions, perceiving that we seek in the liturgy the encounter with Christ, without stiffness and deeply.
LN: Many "Trads" did not understand the reasons for this very firm text and did not recognize themselves in what Pope Francis said about those who refused the Second Vatican Council and the Mass: what would you say to these worried Christians and how do you see the future?
The liturgy is made for the glory of God and our holiness. It is therefore given to us by the Church.
It is important for the Church today, when some people still see the Council as a rupture - the form is new, yes, but not the substance - to have some strong signs of its continuity. Cardinal Ratzinger said in 2001: "To emphasize that there is no essential rupture, that the continuity and identity of the Church exist, it seems to me indispensable to maintain the possibility of celebrating according to the Old Missal as a sign of the Church's permanent identity" (3). This living practice of the Old Missal in its rich simplicity is also consistent with our monastic rhythm.
As for the future, I see one important thing: the caricaturists of all time have always eventually run out of steam. The future belongs to those who have esteem for their brothers of the other sensibility. I am thinking in particular of the communion that today unites the Abbots of the Solesmes Congregation. With a lot of patience, in a climate of welcome, the charism of Dom Guéranger, who in his time knew how to bring about unity in France around the Roman Missal, could manifest itself now in his sons who, all together, would bring a decisive stone to the progress towards unity.
11 comments:
my moneybite is:
"one must maintain communion with Rome, with the necessary assent to the documents that emanate from it, according to their degree of authority. One criterion of this authority is their consistency with what the Church has always taught. If a discrepancy is discerned, let us reflect, take counsel, and pray, in a spirit of silence."
This quote is most important also:
"one must maintain communion with Rome, with the necessary assent to the documents that emanate from it, according to their degree of authority. One criterion of this authority is their consistency with what the Church has always taught. If a discrepancy is discerned, let us reflect, take counsel, and pray, in a spirit of silence."
Indeed, there is a hierarchy of authority when it comes to papal teachings. An encyclical has greater weight than a letter or a homily. Off-the-cuff remarks, when contrary to continuity and Church teaching or are not within the realm of papal authority, like scientific or editorial comments, such as climate change, require no assent whatsoever from rank and file Catholics, although one might agree with the science or the editorial. Comments from he pope about psychology and rigidity hold no teaching value at all and can be completely ignored. Legal documents from the pope can be modified or eliminated too and thus are time constrained.
Also, the Deposit of Faith as well as moral teachings are out in the open and for anyone to discover who wishes to do so and has time to look it up. Thus papal musings that cannot be discovered elsewhere as official teachings can be completely ignored and rejected outright. Undefined doctrines, perhaps only a theological reflection, unless condemned can be held or rejected by Catholics. One that comes to mind is limbo for unbaptized children. Gender ideology espoused by anyone in the Church, especially by an espiscopal authority can be resoundly rejected by Catholics, clergy or laity.
This young priest gets it! My 32 year old pastor feels the same way. There will be a slow reblossoming of Catholicism once the double-knit dinosaurs have departed this earth!
New and old can coexist with some effort. https://fssp.com/the-missive/
I am amazed that New Catholic/Rorate Caeli, a vicious Vatican II hater/liturgical warmonger, who has trashed Sacrosanctum Concilium repeatedly, allowed the following on his blog:
Dom Louis Blanc:
"Our abbey happily lives by the practice that comes from Fontgombault: the Roman liturgy as it is recorded in the ancient Missal. Some modifications have been made over the decades in response to the needs of the Church as expressed by Rome, especially in the beautiful Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium."
The "beautiful Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium." Wow!
Sacrosanctum Concilium is despised among "traditionalists."
Again, it is beyond comprehension that New Catholic/Rorate Caeli opened his blog to a positive assessment of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Leading trads, such as New Catholic, have long trashed Sacrosanctum Concilium as an evil, horrific document.
Additional example: Peter Kwasniewski, June 21, 2021 A.D.
https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/sacrosanctum-concilium-the-ultimate-trojan-horse
Sacrosanctum Concilium: The Ultimate Trojan Horse
"Sacrosanctum Concilium is not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church.
"I know that it’s painful for many good Catholics to admit that it is a corrupt and corrosive document, but we must judge the tree by its fruits."
Again, in tremendous opposition to the above:
Dom Louis Blanc: The "beautiful Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."Dom Louis Blanc of Triors, France. He makes sense and is, like me, very conciliatory as it concerns both forms of the Mass and Sacrosanctum Concilium."
Again, it is beyond belief New Catholic (Rorate Caeli) promoted the above. Rorate Caeli, a liturgical warmongering blog, is committed to the destruction of the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
New Catholic, as well as his wing of "traditional Catholicism," rejected Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical peace plan — Summorum Pontificum.
New Catholic, and his ilk — that has included certain folks who post here — have insisted upon the TLM's return as the Latin Church's primary Mass. Said folks have rejected the peaceful coexistence of the TLM, as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
Therefore, it is beyond belief that New Catholic, a radical liturgical warmonger, as well as hater of Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium) promoted Dom Louis Blanc's call for liturgical peace...as well as the praise that Dom Louis Blanc's has heaped upon Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Dom Louis Blanc said..."It was only after the year 2000 that I began to become aware of the liturgical debates, at a time when St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI after him had been able to restore a climate of peace."
That does not correspond to reality...well, at least in regard to widespread liturgical peace.
Pope Benedict XVI had moved the Church beyond Pope Saint John Paul II's holy attempts to secure widespread liturgical peace within the Latin Church. That would not have been necessary had Pope Saint John Paul II's holy attempt(s) to secure liturgical proved successful.
In particular, Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as many of his followers outside the SSPX, led the revolt against Pope Saint John Paul II's (as well as then-Cardinal Ratzinger's) holy liturgical peace efforts.
Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as his radical followers, insisted that Pope Saint John Paul II, as well as then-Cardinal Ratzinger, were devious, dishonest men...apostates...who belonged to NewChurch/Modernist Rome.
Many years later, "traditionalists," in widespread fashion, rejected Pope Benedict XVI's holy liturgical peace plan — Summorum Pontificum.
More than a few "traditionalists" are at war with Vatican II/the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI. The trads in question have refused to accept Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical peace plan that promoted the peaceful coexistence of the two Masses in question.
In addition, far too many "liberal" bishops and priests rejected/despised Pope Saint John Paul II, as well as then-Cardinal Ratzinger, were devious, dishonest men...apostates...who belonged to NewChurch/Modernist Rome.
In turn, "traditionalists," in widespread fashion, rejected Pope Benedict XVI's holy liturgical peace plan — Summorum Pontificum.
More than a few "traditionalists" are at war with Vatican II/the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI. The trads in question have refused to accept Pope Benedict XVI's that promoted the peaceful coexistence of the two Masses in question.
In addition, far too many "liberal" bishops and priests rejected/despised the liturgical peace plans that Popes Saint John Paul II, as well as Benedict XVI, had developed.
At best, said liberal bishops and priest had paid mere lip service to Summorum Pontificum.
Far too many liberal bishops and priests had tossed Summorum Pontificfum into the garbage.
It is unrealistic to insist that holy Popes Saint John Paul II, as well as Benedict XVI, had restored, at least in widespread fashion, a climate of liturgical peace within the Latin Church.
But our holy Popes in question were not at fault for said failures.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
Can I ask if you agree with the claim in Dictatus made by Gregory VII in the 11th century that a rightly elected pope is, without question, a saint, made so by the merits of Peter ( by the way, a teaching or idea that most of his successors dropped like a burning coal).
Also, Mark, do you acknowledge there are limits to ultramontanism? For example, can I ask you if you think the 19th century Swiss Bishop (later cardinal) Mermillod went too far when he spoke in sermons on the three incarnations of Christ - in the womb of the Virgin Mary, in the Eucharist and in the person of the reigning pontiff.
Paul,
You are wasting your time. MT is the original “dump and run.” He dumps a lot of non sequiturs and never answers your legitimate questions. For the last couple of years I have asked him what the Pope has done to the Vatican clerics involved in a cocaine fueled gay sex orgy at the Vatican. Crickets.
Post a Comment