Bishop Peter J. Elliott, RIP, was not a reactionary or backward looking, what Pope Francis would call a “backwardist.” He was very much a post-Vatican II convert to the Catholic Faith from Anglicanism and embraced both forms of the Liturgies of the Church as Pope Benedict XVI described them.
He lamented Pope Francis’ poorly written and unpastoral Traditionis Custodis. He did so for good reason, because it was poorly written and unpastoral. He also had the guts to say that many points made by Pope Francis in TC were UNTRUE!
The Catholic World Report writes that “Bishop Emeritus Peter John Elliott of Melbourne died this past Wednesday, August 6th, at Box Hill Hospital at the age of 81. Bishop Elliott was a convert to the Catholic Church, and was known for his scholarship, catechetical work, and pastoral wisdom. His doctoral studies were at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome; he was appointed an Official of the Pontifical Council for the Family in 1987. He authored and edited several books for Ignatius Press, including Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, Ceremonies of the Liturgical Year, Liturgical Question Box, Ceremonies Explained for Servers: A Manual for Altar Servers, Acolytes, Sacristans, and Masters of Ceremonies, and The Sexual Revolution: History, Ideology, Power.”
Rotate Caeli writes this about the good late Bishop John Elliott:
Bishop Elliott gave his consistent support to the traditional Mass in Melbourne and beyond, frequently celebrating Pontifical Mass in the Newmam Parish, as well as during “Juventutem” (WYD) and the Christus Rex pilgrimage.
In July 2021, Pope Francis moved to reverse the liturgical policies of John Paul II & Benedict XVI, issuing the decree “Traditionis Custodes”, in which he attempted to impose severe restrictions on the celebration of the traditional Mass. Within less that two weeks after this, Bishop Elliott published in the national newspaper, “The Australian”, an impassioned defence of the traditional Mass and of those Catholics attached to it.
“It might be argued”, Bishop Elliott wrote “that key points in the decree are plainly untrue, and that the document is so incompetently drafted as to be moot anyway. The pastoral effects of [this] dictat are: confusion, anger and hurt.” The Bishop continued: "Having received copies of a flood of anguished letters, protesting about the severe papal ruling, I hear not only their pain but moving arguments explaining their love for the stately old rite, its attractive silence and engaging spirituality. Young people and young families wrote many of these sad letters. They are certainly not divisive extremists, aggressive cranks or nostalgic old folk.”
Bishop Elliott continued to support traditional Catholics through these difficult times, both in word and in deed. He welcomed the election of Pope Leo XIV, and died hopeful of the traditional Latin liturgy's being restored definitively to an honoured place in the life of the Church, through a retrieval of the discipline and teaching of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. As Bishop Elliott said to us in 2024, after the last Confirmations he conferred in the Parish of St John Henry Newman, “the only way forward is through the past.”
9 comments:
A truly pastoral bishop, unlike some of the nasties appointed by Pope "Merciful!" May Bishop Elliott rest in peace!
The only way forward is through the past.”
Truer words were never spoken.
I read a quote within the last week that I should have bookmarked. It was said by an Orthodox. The gist of the quote is something to the effect of "being locked in a circle of now/modernity, the faith becomes whatever now says it's going to be". It looses its roots and footing. Why I find statements like the following so unnerving (and, to me, it's a fundamental difference in ethos):
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh
Yes, the design reflects the ecclesiology of the modern era which is, in my opinion, more biblical and, necessarily, more inclusive. That is, in the modern era, a good thing. Pretending we live in another time and/or place and building for that foreign time/place is an error.
Who is pretending? As an Eastern Catholic believer, I'm oftentimes struck by who timeless our actions, words and temples are. Yes, change has occurred, albeit organically. Nonetheless, it is so rooted in its origins the Church Fathers would instantly recognize it if they were to walk in. Unbroken chain of tradition is nothing to deride, snicker at, or denigrate those whose opinions and preferences are for what the Fathers gave us. We are temporary stewards of our patrimony, nothing more.
By Bishop Peter J. Elliott, for New Liturgical Movement, 2014 A.D.
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/02/reform-of-reform-not-impossible.html
=======
"I have become uneasy with the words “reform of the reform”.
"Permit me to offer counsel to those who announce the total failure of the post-conciliar liturgical reform, claiming that a reform of it is impossible and insisting that the Extraordinary Form is the only answer.
"Let us be realistic. If you want the Extraordinary Form to become the Ordinary Form, reflect on the millions of people who come to vernacular Masses in our parishes around the world, in many countries and cultures.
"Would they easily embrace a Latin Low Mass with a server answering? And let us not forget the priests. This is why some pastoral realism is required.
"But let me put out a challenge - a reform of the Extraordinary Form would first be required - and I note that this has been suggested in terms of the Vatican Council’s “full, active and conscious participation.”
"What needs to be discerned is whether this re-sacralising trend will endure and develop, for it is a major achievement of the reform of the reform that can be traced back to Blessed John Paul II (the Vox Clara committee), then developed so well by Benedict XVI in his wider project.
"This is why I do not want to see the gains of the reform of the reform project, fragile as it often is, broken or derided by triumphalist rhetoric, or pushed aside by an impatience that dismisses the whole Paul VI reform as beyond salvation.
"However, the integrity of the two forms needs to be preserved and respected, even as the two are meant to influence each other in these times.
"Please let us keep this important conversation realistic, patient and moderate.
"The gift of Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict’s vision should not be compromised by loudly proclaiming the total failure of the Paul VI post-conciliar reforms.
"Sweeping claims and an imprudent triumphalism do no credit to some advocates of the Extraordinary Form.
"Polemics also demean and discourage those of us who are still working to enrich the liturgy that is celebrated in most Roman Rite churches around the world.
However, to maintain Pope Benedict’s Pax Liturgica, we all need much patience, and often that is hardest virtue on the Christian journey."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
If only Pope Francis had been as brilliant as Pope Benedict and Bishop Elliott! But alas!
Keep in mind this is from 2014! What I post here wrote after TC…
Bishop Peter J. Elliott (requiescat in pace) was wise to have opposed folks who attacked the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
Bishop Elliott was wise to have opposed the notion that the "Extraordinary Form is the only answer." Said notion entails the waging of war against the Church/Holy Mass of Saint Paul VI.
Bishop Peter J. Elliott was wise to have warned that "Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict’s vision should not be compromised by loudly proclaiming the total failure of the Paul VI post-conciliar reforms. Sweeping claims and an imprudent triumphalism do no credit to some advocates of the Extraordinary Form."
Bishop Peter Elliott was correct that the above would damage "Pope Benedict’s Pax Liturgica."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Yes, unlike Pope Francis, Bishop Elliott, as my title for this post, was not either/or but both/and when it comes to the two forms of the one Roman Rite. He was courageous enough to point out the untruths of the poor written and unpastoral TC. MT, YOU ARE COMING ALONG. IY MUST BE THE Leo effect! Congratulations. 🎊
Mark Thomas,
I am so glad you are willing to cite Bishop Elliott. In case you missed it, after Traditionis Custodes he published a piece about it.
“It might be argued”, Bishop Elliott wrote “that key points in the decree are plainly untrue, and that the document is so incompetently drafted as to be moot anyway. The pastoral effects of [this] dictat are: confusion, anger and hurt.” The Bishop continued: "Having received copies of a flood of anguished letters, protesting about the severe papal ruling, I hear not only their pain but moving arguments explaining their love for the stately old rite, its attractive silence and engaging spirituality. Young people and young families wrote many of these sad letters. They are certainly not divisive extremists, aggressive cranks or nostalgic old folk.”
Again, I am so glad that you think Bishop Elliott is worth listening to.
Nick
In regard to Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) and the issue of either/or:
Following his promulgation of Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis continued to support the TLM.
=======
Bishop Elliott called it. He warned that attacking the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI..."triumphalism" promoted by "advocates of the Extraordinary Form"...promoting the notion that the "Extraordinary Form is the only answer"...
...would damage Pope Benedict XVI's "Pax Liturgica." That proved true.
Pope Francis, in turn, injected liturgical, as well as spiritual sanity, into the TLM Movement.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment