Andrea Grillo gave an interview to Messa in Latino HERE and what a mess and mean-spirited man he is. He is a symbol of the terrorist liturgist who knows everything as we know academic liturgists know and that they are not to be challenged or questioned.
What a lay clerical fool he is!
This segment of the interview captures it! I wonder what the Eastern Rites and the parallel Orthodox Churches will have to say about this man’s Latin Rite arrogance, not to mention the various Latin Rites, like the Ordinariate and Ambrosian ones!
Professor Grillo: The first question contains numerous inaccuracies that undermine the very meaning of the question. I will try to illustrate them one by one. Those you call “traditionalists faithful to Rome” are actually people who, for various reasons, are at odds with Rome, and not in a relationship of fidelity. The point of contention does not simply concern a “ritual form” but a way of understanding relations inside and outside the Church. It all begins with the misunderstanding generated (in good faith, but through a completely wrong judgement) by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, which had introduced a “ritual parallelism” (between the Novus Ordo and Vetus Ordo) that has neither a systematic nor practical foundation: it is not theologically sound and generates greater divisions than those that were present previously. The idea of “fidelity to Rome” must be challenged: to be faithful to Rome, one must acquire a “ritual language” according to what Rome has communally established. One is not faithful if one has one foot in two shoes. Having demonstrated this contradiction, the merit of Traditionis Custodes is that it re-establishes the one “lex orandi” in force for the entire Catholic Church. If someone tells me he is faithful at the same time to the Novus Ordo and Vetus Ordo, I reply that he has not understood the meaning of tradition, within which there a legitimate and insuperable progress that is irreversible.
8 comments:
Father, you and I would not put our trust in this montebank. What surprises is that anyone would. It says more about those who listen to (or worse enact) what this individual espouses.
As Fr. Z says, they don't hate the TLM; they hate those who love it. 🙄
How's that "Spirit of Vatican II" working out again?
So, how does Professor Pompous answer the fact that so many Catholics awaited Summorum before attending Latin Masses, and went to FSSP masses and Ordinariate masses instead of SSPX masses?
If they are so unfaithful to Rome, why did so many await approved rites from Rome, and why do so many yet avoid SSPX?
When Summorum came down, and small numbers of Latin masses began to be celebrated in the US, France, England and UK, etc, this signified a sudden spontaneous combustion of revolutionary fervor against Rome while Benedict was Pope?... or that Benedict was actually the Che Guevara of the modern age, and that it is Francis who is the guardian of tradition against the forces of revolution? I DO think this last point is exactly the one he is trying to make through all the convoluted twisting of his learned verbosity.
Bob, your last point is correct. People like Grillo have the pope’s ear about both JPII and Benedict XVI. That is why this pope has tried and succeeded, at least for now, in canceling both papacies. Grillo is specific about his animus about Benedict and Summorum Pontificum and that Benedict’s leadership in this regard was a new trajectory forward in the post Vatican II Church as well as his renewal in continuity not in a breach with what occurred in the pre-Vatican II Church. He also castigates Benedict’s nostalgia for old things, like the Ancient Order of the Mass. He even quotes Benedict’s famous words about what previous generations held as sacred we must too. He says that is not theology but nostalgia which Grillo despises. But it sin’t nostalgia for young people who discovered the TLM because of Benedict. They see that Mass as New and improved and those who long for the day of only “one” Latin Rite Mass as nostalgic.
Grillo needs our prayers as does the pope. God willing the next pope will cancel the hubris of this papacy and his henchmen.
They preach that the only constant is change, therefore we exist only in chaos, the the nature of the eternal is a changeable concept along with its demands, and hence unknowable and never known to date...it is a void and emptiness which they put forward as worthy of belief, and truly worthy of one author, and that is not God.
Just my opinion, but given Professor Pompous' stature in the Francis regime and his part already in the suppression, his attacks now strike me as a preemptive PR propaganda move opening salvo of more draconian moves to come...first order of business in amy war is to paint the adversary as sub-human for the press...he even said that Benedict, one of the highest regarded theologians of the last century, did not know what he was talking about....
I have found it interesting that Andrea Grillo, as well as more than a few "traditional" Catholics, agree with each other in regard to the following:
-- Summorum Pontificum featured muddled thinking/unsound theology.
-- Summorum Pontificum was, in turn, unsustainable.
-- Summorum Pontificum generated "greater divisions than those that were present previously." (That quote is from Mister Grillo's interview in question.)
In regard to that last point: Andrea Grillo, as well as various "traditionalists," agree that Summorum Pontificm added to certain divisions that were present within the Church.
Andrea Grillo has viewed that as dreadful. However, certain "traditionalists" have viewed that as a positive.
That is, said "traditionalists" believe that the TLM will militarize a Catholic against the Council, Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, etc. Again, to said "traditionalists," that is desirable.
Example: Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX, declared:
"With Summorum Pontificum, the Tridentine Mass was then granted a much wider right. This allowed a certain number of priests to discover it; and by celebrating it – it must be acknowledged – many priests began to question their priesthood, and to question the Council and the New Mass."
Father Pagliarani insisted that "this motu proprio, which remained flawed, was based on an error: two forms of the same rite of Mass, and above all, I would like to add, the illusion of improving something in the current crisis without discussing the causes of the crisis."
"This was the error of Pope Benedict XVI and the limitations of this motu proprio: it just could not work. It could work for a while, but sooner or later it would lead to what has happened."
=======
Again, Andrea Grillo, as well as various "traditionalists," agree on many aspects related to their unacceptable trashing of Pope Benedict XVI's supposed "flawed" attempt to obtain liturgical peace within the (Latin) Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Andrea Grillo:
"The arguments of traditionalists are weak because they deny what best describes tradition: namely its service to change. Those who challenge the liturgical reform have every right to speak out, but they cannot claim that their arguments are “self-evident”."
"For example, one cannot infer from one’s criticism of the “reform of Holy Week” the right to resort to the rites prior to “any reform” of the Triduum, i.e. the rites prior to the 1950s."
"Those who act in this way not only do not contribute to the ecclesial debate, but objectively place themselves outside Catholic tradition; and however much they reaffirm their “fidelity to the Pope”, they are in fact refusing it."
=======
In regard to Mister Grillo's interview in question:
Mike Lewis declared: "I mostly agree with Grillo in this interview but I don't appreciate the Benedict bashing."
I have found that via his interview, Mister Grillo has offered several formidable points. But in line with Mike Lewis's comment in question, it is unacceptable to have bashed holy Pope Benedict XVI.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment