I copy this from Fr. Z’s blog about an interview that Archbishop Georg Gänswein gave to a German paper. It is not clear if this interview was given before or after Pope Benedict’s death.
Neo-traditionalists who opposed Pope Benedict’s vision for the Post Vatican II Church and who, against his teachings, rejected Vatican II in its entirety and desired only the Liturgy prior to Vatican II and refused to attend even a traditionally celebrated Modern Missal, need to examine their conscience. This examination also needs to include hyperbole against the current Supreme Pontiff, a disrespect that in pre-Vatican II times could get a person excommunicated.
Pope Francis, for his part, needs to examine his conscience in over-reacting to these neo-traditionalists and thus harming Catholics who very much are united to the Church and the proper interpretation of Vatican II. They don’t reject Vatican II only heterodox interpretations of it.
All that was needed was a slight adjustment to Pope Benedict’s permission for the older Mass, meaning that bishops and priests should have embraced the letter and spirit of Summorum Pontificum:
Here is what I copy from Fr. Z’s blog:
Archbp. Georg Gänswein did a video interview with Die Tagespost. He was asked about Benedict’s reaction to the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes…
Gänswein said that reading that Motu Proprio was a “turning point” for Benedict (Einschnitt, a “crucial event”).
He said that Benedict read it “mit Schmerz im Herzen… with pain in his heart”. Put another way… “it broke his heart.
It was a turning point.
Gänswein also said that the “Old Mass” had been the “source of their spiritual life” for many people for centuries, “food for many saints”. He could not imagine “that this is something that is no longer good”. This applies to many young people “who no longer really understand the whole fuss (Theater) about the Council”. Gänswein said he was “not comfortable” (nicht ganz wohl) taking this treasure away.
10 comments:
I am surprised the Archbishop had the courage to tell the truth. 3, 2, 1 …. For Master of Non Sequiturs to show up and dump the usual drivel
The New Liturgical Movement did an article the other day posting Pope Benedict’s numerous statements over the years regarding the “reform” and it isn’t pretty. The intellectually dishonest should avoid the article
Frankly, I am relieved to read, if that report is to believed, that Pope Benedict was affected this way. I am not yet of the mind to reject Vatican II, but I am completely agnostic as to its benefits and distrustful of its advocates.
It pains my heart to know of the Pope Emeritus' reaction.
If we are to believe Archbishop Georg Gänswein...if the translation is accurate:
Then he has revealed something incredible...and in the process, he has contradicted Pope Benedict XVI, while confirming the claims of many "traditionalists."
When Summorum Pontificum was issued, more than a few "traditionalists" had warned that the motu proprio was a trick...a Trojan Horse designed to ignite controversy within the SSPX so as to weaken, if not destroy, the Society...and to divide the trad community (said community was/remains divided) to an even greater extent then had existed.
Infighting had erupted among trads, within, and without, the SSPX, in regard to Summorum Pontificum's purpose.
Now, if Archbishop Georg Gänswein's claim in question is valid — again, he has contradicted Pope Benedict XVI — we know that Summorum Pontificum's purpose was to undermine Archbishop Lefebvre/the SSPX.
Archbishop Georg Gänswein has claimed that Summorum Pontificum was issued to "draw" those who had found a home "in the Old Mass... away from Lefebvre."
That has confirmed that which many trads had warned in regard to Summorum Pontificum.
However, on September 12, 2008 A.D., Pope Benedict XVI insisted that Summorum Pontificum was "merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group..."
The above is in opposition to Archbishop Georg Gänswein's claim in question.
In addition, Summorum Pontificum, as well as Pope Benedict XVI's Letter to the Bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum, contradict Archbishop Georg Gänswein's claim in question.
Archbishop Georg Gänswein, should the translation prove correct, has issued a startling revelation in regard to Summorum Pontificum's true purpose.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Archbishop Georg Gänswein's comments are in dire need of context/clarification.
1. To begin: Is the translation correct? I have encountered today several reports that have offered translations that have differed from the "official" translation.
2. Traditionis Custodes had "pained" Pope Benedict XVI supposedly. That does not mean that he failed to have grasped the reason as to why Traditionis Custodes had been issued.
3. Pope Benedict XVI had invited bishops to report upon upon their (the bishops') experiences in regard to Summorum Pontificum.
4. Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that "truly serious difficulties" could plague Summorum Pontificum.
5. In regard to Summorum Pontificum:
In 2020 A.D, in line with Pope Benedict XVI's request to receive feedback from the bishops, "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops."
6. Pope Francis had received negative feedback from the bishops, as well as the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
7. Pope Francis had been forced to respond to the "rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself..."...that characterized often the TLM Movement.
====================================================================================
More than a few "traditionalists" had weaponized Summorum Pontificum/TLM against the Council, liturgical reform, Popes, additional Churchmen...
A significant amount of "traditionalists" had rejected Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical peace plan.
Such leading trads as Peter Kwasniewski had denounced Summorum Pontificum as a confused document that Pope Benedict XVI had packed with "lies" supposedly.
Said folks insisted that Pope Benedict XVI desired the impossible. That is, the peaceful coexistence of the TLM, and Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
Said folks have insisted that the Council, as well as Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, must be destroyed.
The following is not Pope Benedict XVI's fault: In regard to Summorum Pontificum, Pope Francis had been dealt an horrific situation.
It is not Pope Francis who betrayed Summorum Pontificum.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The founding of the FSSP by Pope St. John Paul II was precisely what you said in terms of bringing people back from the SSPX including priests. Summorum PONTIFICUM expanded that to every Catholic parish. No secret there or of Pope Benedict’s desire to fully reintegrate the bishops there with the pope. I think an ordinariate solution would have worked. Of course the Anglican Ordinariate does the same with Anglican Protestants to reintegrate them too. The Eastern Rites do the same for reintegration of the Orthodox Churches. Put it is clear from Gainswain that pope Francis deeply wounded the heart of Benedict with TC as he has with most loyal Catholics who love the TLM. It truly is uncharitable and scandalous.
Father McDonald, I appreciate your response.
What remains is that Archbishop Georg Gänswein's insisted that Summorum Pontificum was issued to draw those who had found a home "in the Old Mass... away from Lefebvre." I have not encountered one utterance from Pope Benedict XVI that supports Archbishop Gänswein's claim in question.
Following Summorum Pontificum, the SSPX operated as they had for years...ordaining priests, etc.
Pope Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunications against the SSPX bishops. He engaged the SSPX in discussions.
I do not recall Pope Benedict XVI having moved against the SSPX...or having signalled that he desired to empty the SSPX.
From the release of SP, to the end of his Pontificate, can anybody cite any declaration from Pope Benedict XVI that would confirm Archbishop Gänswein's claim in question?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, you are completely misrepresenting Pope Benedict on this. His desire was to bring inner healing of the Church as it concerns Vatican II and the Liturgy. He and Pope Saint JPII wanted to reintegrate the SSPX fully into the Church and on an equal footing with all other Catholics and bishops. The FSSP was precisely to do this. Summorum Pontificum was too. It was an olive branch to the SSPX and their bishops as well as lifting the excommunications. But the situation with the SSPX is still irregular (not in an actual schism yet). The SSPX did not reciprocate by moderating some of their claims about Vatican II.
But Summorum Pontificum was to allow for a renewal or a reform in continuity of the Modern Roman Missal where the celebration of both could influence both with the good things of both. A small minority of neo-traditionalists rejected this, a very small number.
Did Pope Benedict say the developing of the Anglican Ordinariate with a liturgy very similar to the high Anglican Church’s liturgy and patrimony was to take Anglicans away from this Protestant Communion? No, but that was the purpose. We know that Pope Francis was not in favor of this and I fear that he may suppress it in the future like he did of so many of Pope Benedict’s papal Magisterium.
Father McDonald, I disagree that I have misrepresented Pope Benedict XVI.
To focus upon my original contention: Archbishop Georg Gänswein's claim in question does not correspond to Pope Benedict XVI's declarations as to why he (Pope Benedict XVI) had issued Summorum Pontificum.
Anyway, Father McDonald, thank you for your replies.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
You’re like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz
Post a Comment