DOES ANDREA GRILLO EXPECT ANYONE, ESPECIALLY BISHOPS, TO TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY?

This is an embarrassment for the liturgist most influential with Pope Francis, the Italian Andrea Grillo. I post a google translate of his brief Italian article about Pope Francis’ clarification/rescript of his original sloppy Traditionis C. 

What Grillo writes, though, but in a way he did not mean, but subconsciously observes, is how devastating the ideology of discontinuity is not only from the Council of Trent to Vatican II but also the devastating discontinuity between Popes St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI compared to the papacy of Pope Francis. 

Discontinuity creates chaos and we’ve had it for the last 60 years. Thanks be to Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, some of that confusion dissipated and a happier course for the Church was set until Pope Benedict’s abdication and the election of Pope Francis on 03/13/13.

The other peculiar thing that Grillo writes is that the Vetus Ordo (TLM) does not allow for ritual pluralism or diversity as does the Modern Mass. This assertion is absurd. There are several “rites” in the Vetus Ordo, and one of the most famous is the Rite in Milan, which even today in its post Vatican II form is slightly different in major ways compared to the current MRM. 

Also, in the Vetus Ordo, attempts were made at inculturation and chanting the Latin parts of the Mass in a new style and in Africa with an African-centric cadence and sound! Vestments too, could have cultural differences as we have seen in pre-Vatican II Japanese and Chinese Masses. 

Pope Francis reinitiated the discontinuity prevalent in Catholic theology in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II that lasted until the election of Pope St. John Paul II in the fall of 1978.

Here’s Grillo’s commentary:

Vescovi esautorati dal Rescritto?

di Andrea Grillo

Bishops deprived of authority by the Rescript?
 by Andrea Grillo

Since following the Rescript of last February 20 there have been reactions that are hardly justifiable, if not in a logic of blindness from alignment against the current pope, I would like briefly to refute one of the positions that emerged from the debate and which rests on a sort of "forgetfulness ” about the real profile of the issue at stake.

 I leave the floor for a moment to an attentive observer like Giovanni Marcotullio, who summarized his position regarding the document as follows:

 "it must be observed that the current trend tends to reproduce (equal and opposite) the error already complainable in Summorum pontificum, and that is the dismissal of the Bishops."

 I take your summary because it seems to me calm and capable of expressing, with classical brevitas, a reservation that has emerged from various fronts, which, however, in my opinion is completely unfounded, precisely because, by overturning an originally founded argument (that of exhaustion) the nature of and applies it beyond its possible justification.

 The decisive question that had been raised for some time, starting in 2007, was that the Bishops were deprived of their authority over the liturgy, since Summorum Pontificum effectively instituted a ritual parallelism together with a parallelism of competences.  If the Bishops and the Congregation of worship were competent for the ordinary form, a Commission (Ecclesia Dei) was competent for the extraordinary form, which deprived both the Bishops and the Congregation of worship.  In fact, both the Bishops and the Congregation were bypassed in the judgment on the exercise of the "extraordinary form" of the Roman rite.  This fact, however, obviously also affected the authority over the "ordinary form", since it structurally limited its effectiveness.  There was always "another table" where someone could play relying on Roman cover.

 What is happening today cannot in any way be read as an "equal and opposite error", because there is no longer that "ritual parallelism", instituted by SP and superseded by TC, which would allow today to say to the bishops that they "have lost the authority on the extraordinary form".  The paradox is that the Bishops have never had, after 2007, an authority on the extraordinary form: the authority was guaranteed to them by Ecclesia Dei.  Today, however, they cannot have it, not because they are deprived of authority, but because there is no longer any "extraordinary form" of the Roman rite, but only one ritual form, which corresponds to the single post-conciliar ordo.  Any exception to this can be granted, for reasons of discernment or prudence, directly or indirectly, by the Apostolic See.

 If this new balance, determined by Traditionis Custodes in 2021, finds opposition in some Bishops, it is only because the Bishops continue to think with a logic of "double existing form".  Perhaps this is also due to the fact, subjectively not secondary, that in order to become Bishops, at least until 2013, many of them had to give specific proof of a particular sensitivity towards the VO: but it is equally certain that the Bishops should be convinced that they work for the unity of the Church through the single existing rite.  If they then encounter particular conditions (not in their hearts, but in their territories) then they can turn to the Holy See.  They are certainly deprived of the temptation of being able (or having to) protect at all costs any possible resistance to the Second Vatican Council: it is not part of their charisma to engage pastorally in rearguard battles.

 Last curiosity to report.  One of the captious objections to Pope Francis' latest provision is this: so much rhetoric on difference, participation and the plurality of cultures, but then in the liturgy only gestures of harsh centralism.  I think it would be helpful for everyone to read things in a more subtle way.  The VO did not admit any ritual difference, while it is the NO that has within it a possible plurality, of implementation or adaptation.  Placing the rite of Pius V in parallel with the Congolese missal is historically and theologically absurd.  When the pope says that "only one is the lex orandi" he keeps the path of plurality open.  It is those bishops who would always like to keep their foot in two shoes who do not give up the hypothesis that the Catholic Church is true only if it remains (at least at the altar) visibly Tridentine.  Liturgically, keeping your foot in both shoes is not for bishops: on this the Rescript is adamant.