I think it was providential that the cardinals decided not to discuss the liturgy at their recent consistory, more than likely due to the lack of time and the weighty discussions on the two topics they did choose.
The problem wasn’t with the four topics but that Pope Leo had four topics but didn’t ask the cardinals for a longer meeting that would be necessary.
But, by Providence, the less that weighty document of Cardinal Roche given to the cardinals to reflect upon before the next consistory, shows clearly how weak that document is when compared to the Magisterium of Pope Benedict XVI. Will the cardinals not see who weak Cardinal Roche’s apologetics are compared to the Supreme Pontiff, now deceased, and his explanations about how the TLM was never abrogated and that there can be two forms of the one Roman Rite?
Who should the cardinals and Pope Leo listen to? A lightweight like Cardinal Roche, who is quite rigid, maybe due to his English background, or the the Doctor of the Church, Pope Benedict XVI?
Thanks be to God, that sound-cardinal theologians can mount a far better apologetic for Summorum Ponticum’s return at the June Consistory compared to the flimsy apologetic of Cardinal Roche!
Here is Mark Thomas’ apologetic against Cardinal Roche’s weak ideology:
Reporter's question (to Pope Benedict): "What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?"
Pope Benedict XVI: "Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is 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...There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy."
=======
"Summorum Pontificum is merely an act of tolerance...There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy."
My final comment: We know that Cardinal Ratzinger and also after he became Pope Benedict XVI was very concerned about the fabrication that the Bugnini Mass is and how it disordered the order of the TLM, made up a new order in other words.
He was also concerned about the liturgical abuses that are so common in the fabricated Mass of Bugnini.
But as cardinal, Pope Benedict knew that if the Bugnini Mass was celebrated in Latin/Greek, ad orientem and with Kneeling to receive Holy Communion, that most lay Catholics wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. But he acknowleded that the disorders of the Bugnini Mass had led to its celebrations being different from priest to priest, parish to parish and diocese to diocese.
We know that Cardinal Ratzinger celebrated publicly the TLM and more than likely celebrated it privately as pope in his own chapel which was widely circulated during his papacy.
- Private Celebration: reports regarding private celebrations:
- Bishop Bernard Fellay, then-head of the SSPX, claimed in 2010 that Benedict privately celebrated the Tridentine Mass.
- Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Benedict’s personal secretary, reportedly stated that both he and the Pope celebrated the old rite in private.
We also know that as Pope, Pope Benedict publicly modeled celebrating the Bugnini Mass ad orientem and distributed Holy Communion to communicants kneeling for whom he provided a kneeler to assist them.
26 comments:
Father McDonald, I am happy to have helped.
I had planned to spend today watching cartoons, scanning for U-boats, and, every 16 seconds, adjusting my baseball cap.
Bui to my amazement, I have, instead, made a staggering, tremendous, monumental contribution to Pope Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of promoting the TLM."
I promise not to let that go to my head.
I can see myself now...
"I would like to thank the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for this prestigious award...
"...I promise not to forget all the little people back on Father, oh, what's his name...McDougal...umm...McNally...whatever...Northern, or Western...or something Orders blog..."
:-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"...fabrication that the Bugnini Mass..." This is false.
"...how it disordered the order of the TLM, made up a new order in other words...." This, too, is false.
Of course you have every right to disagree with Pope Benedict’s critique. Of course Pope Benedict has the chops to say your opinion is false, as this most humble blogger would.
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2026/01/cardinal-roche-is-very-very-worried.html
I appreciate the linked critique of Card. Roche's letter, without necessarily endorsing it in every particular. Of particular note is Roche's wishy-washy opinions on TLM and on TC itself, and this point:
"His Eminence ends by quoting Pope Francis again, from the apostolic letter Desiderio desideravi: “I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council ... and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium.” And here lies the crux of the matter. It is in point of fact perfectly easy to see how this is possible, for those who have eyes to see. One simply has to be willing to recognize the obvious truth, that the liturgical reform was not born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium. It was born out of the rejection of Sacrosanctum Concilium."
Nick
Of course the All Highest K is unable or won't celebrate the TLM, I suspect because he would no longer be center stage and he would not be able to inject his preferences into the Mass aka the Kavanaugh Rite!
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - You make up things and exaggerate all the time.
Yes, Pope Benedict was wrong to say, if indeed he did, that Bugnini "fabricated" the NO.
I’ll stick with the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI who says his opinion is correct and yours anathema…just sayin.
Whether fabricated by Bugnini or by committee, it was fabricated. It was not the product of natural growth.
Anthony - If one reads St. Justin Martyr's First Apology one finds a description of the eucharist celebrated by the earliest Christians. That very pattern is followed by the NO, minus the historical - not traditional, but historical - accretions that crept in over the centuries.
I find no description of the "proper" way to fold one's hands, no rubric for placing one's left hand on one's chest when making the sign of the Cross, or instructions such as, "Then, with hands joined and little fingers touching the front of the altar; and, with a medium bow..."
Now maybe you think that these are "organic" and, therefore, essential. Those with far more knowledge that you or I knew better.
Father McDonald said to Father Kavanaugh..."I’ll stick with the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI who says his opinion is correct and yours anathema…"
Father Kavanaugh, as God's holy priest, has reiterated Pope Benedict XVI's official teachings in regard to the reformed Mass.
Why would Father Kavanaugh embrace supposed opinions that contradict official Church teachings?
Pax
Mark Thomas
Why would Cardinal Ratzinger embrace such contradictory opinions?
Both questions are objectionable for being argumentative.
Nick
Fr. Kavanaugh, do you even know what "organic" means? It means to develop in a gradual or natural fashion, not "essential." This is how the Roman Rite developed over the centuries from the kernel described by St. Justin. The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, was created on the spot as a massive disruption of the existing liturgy. This is the polar opposite of being organic.
And I have a question for you. Are the massive changes that are represented by the new Mass essential?
Father McDonald said to Father Kavanaugh..."I’ll stick with the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI who says his opinion is correct and yours anathema…"
Father Kavanaugh's response to Pope Benedict XVI's supposed private opinion in question is not an expression of Father Kavanaugh's opinion.
Father Kavanaugh's defense of the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI has reflected Magisterial teaching. Example:
Pope Saint John Paul II dreclared:
"With a view to the practical implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Liturgy, Pope Paul VI instituted a Consilium later the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and they carried out the task entrusted to them with generosity, competence and promptness."
"The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and selfless work of a large number of experts and bishops from all parts of the world.
"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development; and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with “the ancient usage of the holy Fathers”.
=======
Pope John Paul II issued not an opinion, rather, he issued Magisterial teaching. His Magisterial teaching contradicts the opinion that Pope Benedict XVI had offered supposedly.
Therefore, why would Father Kavanaugh reject the Magisterium to favor a mere opinion?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Unless it is a solemn proclamation issued by an ecumenical council or the pope that is binding on all the faithful (Extraordinary Magisterium), Magisterial teachings are the sum total of all the teachings of the the Church (Ordinary Magisterium), not individuals statements of popes, or even pastoral statements of councils. There is no such thing as the magisterium of one pope or another. There is only the magisterium of the Church.
Anthony said...There is no such thing as the magisterium of one pope or another. There is only the magisterium of the Church."
Popes have employed the phrase "my Magisterium."
I recall the following from Pope Saint John Paul II:
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000227_vatican-council-ii.html
ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II TO THE CONFERENCE STUDYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
Sunday, 27 February 2000
"These words are especially dear to me and I wanted to propose them again in the fundamental passages of my Magisterium."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony - Yes, I know very well what organic means. As you have noted, organic development does not always lead to the addition of elements in the liturgy that are essential.
Despite the thinking of my erstwhile seminary classmate, James Jackson, FSSP, who titled his book, "Nothing Superfluous," the fathers of Vat II recognized that "organic" development was not always a friend to the liturgy. and that superfluities had found their way into the mass.
This was noted by Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, peritus to Cardinal Joseph Frings, in "Theological Highlights of Vatican II" (New York: Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966).
"Ratzinger pointed to five important elements in the liturgical schema. (1) “the return to Christian origins and the pruning of certain accretions that often enough concealed the original liturgical nucleus; examples: priority of Sunday over saints days; of mystery over devotion, of “simple structure over the rank growth of forms”; “defrosting of ritual rigidity; restoration of the liturgy of the Word; “the dialogical nature of the whole liturgical celebration and its essence as the common service of the People of God; “reduction in the status of private Masses in favor of emphasis on greater communal participation.”
Why was significant reform of the liturgy needed? "In a talk delivered in October 1964, Ratzinger remarked “that the first real task of the Council was to overcome the indolent, euphoric feeling that all was well with the Church, and to bring into the open the problems smoldering within” . An example was the question of the liturgy, which represented a “profound crisis in the life of the Church.” Its roots lay back in the late Middle Ages, when “awareness of the real essence of Christian worship increasingly vanished. Great importance was attached to externals, and these choked out the whole.”
As for the necessity or the desirability of maintaining the historical elements of the liturgy for which many argue today, it was Ratzinger's thinking that, "The simplicity of the liturgy was still overgrown with superfluous accretions of purely historical value."
I would suggest that, among other accretions that "chocked out the whole," that were rightly removed from the liturgy were instruction regarding the positioning on the priests' pinkies.
Any private magisterium, even of a pope, is not binding on the faithful. It is neither an exercise of the Ordinary nor Extraordinary Magisterium. It is only a part of a greater Ordinary Magisterium and must be read with the entire Ordinary Magisterium and not as an isolated binding teaching. Furthermore, the Magisterium only touches on matters of faith and morals, not liturgical discipline. Other than the question of proper matter and form, the question of whether one form of the liturgy is congruent with another is a question of prudential judgment, not doctrine.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
The point is that the new Mass is fabricated and not the result of organic development. Nor should this criticism be dismissed as unimportant. Vatican II itself recognized the value of tradition and the need for the reform to be a product of organic development:
23. That sound tradition may be retained. . . Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
The reforms that then Fr. Ratzinger called for were largely carried out by the reformed missal of 1965. There was no need to create a whole new liturgy.
You also seem to be under the erroneous impression that traditions that are not essential can be discarded willy-nilly. This is not the case and is contrary to the instructions given by Vatican II, as has been shown above. Even when non-essential, tradition has value when it maintains something that is helpful. Tradition also has value in itself as a source of stability and as a link to the past. By dismissing this you are just as opposed to Vatican II as the most hardline member of the SSPX.
Now less use your logic that non-essential traditions can be easily discarded and apply it to the new Mass. Could we not then discard the majority of changes that were introduced with the new Mass? How many of them are truly essential?
Anthony - The new mass is not fabricated - that is simply false.
Historical accretions, or superfluous accretions as then Fr. Ratzinger called them, are not essential and can be discarded.
As then Fr. Ratzinger said, they should be discarded as the importance placed on these externals [non-essential traditional accretions] choked out the whole.
Anthony and I on are the factual side, and with Ratzinger who knows the truth unlike you:
The following quotation is attributed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI:
The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.
Not fabricated? New Eucharistic Prayers, complete rewrite of orations, new Introductory Rites, new order of readings, new prayers for the preparation of the gifts, the addition of an amorphous Prayer of the Faithful. How much more innovations are needed before it can rightly be called fabricated. If it were just a matter of eliminating historical accretions, or superfluous accretions, this was largely done with the 1965 revision. Any additional revisions could have been made with the historical Roman Missal as the basis. There was no need to create a whole new missal.
The "new" Eucharistic prayers are based on earlier ones, containing the previous elements. These are not fabrications. Orations have been re-written and re-translated numerous times. These, too, are not fabrications.
And what does it matter that a "new" prayer be introduced? The "old" ones were once new. There is no divine revelation that says we MUST not add new elements to any liturgy. To do so, or not to do so, is a human choice, as God designed.
"Based on", not the same as, i.e., fabricated. The final draft of Eucharistic Prayer II was done by Bernard Botte and Louis Bouyer. Eucharistic Prayers III and IV were written by Cipriano Vagaggini. Then there are the three Eucharistic Prayers for Children (Which my first pastor insisted on using on Sundays as Massed attended by mostly older people and few children), the two Eucharistic Prayers for Reconciliation, and the four Eucharistic Prayers for Use in Masses for Various Needs, a total of twelve new Eucharistic Prayers. All of these were new creations, not restorations of lost prayers.
No, divine revelation does not say that we must not add new elements to the liturgy, but nor does it say that we must. But, as I have pointed out to you above, Vatican II does have something to say:
Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
Note the Council did not say, "beneficial," but not unless "good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them." The good of the Church did not require these new Eucharistic Prayers. The Council also said, "any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." Again, these new Eucharistic Prayers did not grow organically from forms already existing in the Roman Rite. Nor were they the discarding of historical accretions, or superfluous accretions. These new creations were an implicit rejection of Vatican II. And given that the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I), the heart of the Roman Rite, is so rarely used can it be honestly claimed that the Roman Rite continues to exist in the new Mass?
"No, divine revelation does not say that we must not add new elements to the liturgy, but nor does it say that we must."
BUT, we have had innovations/new elements added since the liturgy first appeared.
The new Eucharistic prayers grew organically from the Church's theology of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Now you are going to say they appeared quickly - and they did! Where does Divine Revelation tell us that an "organic development" must occur over 100 years.... or 387 years...... or 840 years.... or some other length of time?
No, they are not restorations. They are reformations and re-formulations. Every institution needs restoration from time to time, don't you think? Or are you of the mind that everything was just HUNKY-DORY right p to the moment Jonh XXIII set the preparations for the Council in action?
Yes, we have had innovations and new elements over the centuries but they have always been gradual and minimal. There is no precedence for the massive changes that occurred after the Council. On the whole, the Mass showed a considerable stability for 1600 years before the Council. I am frankly tired of the false use of the minor changes that occurred over those centuries to justify the complete rewrite of the Mass that occurred after Vatican II.
Nor did the new Eucharistic prayers grow organically from earlier forms. Divine Revelation is not the only source of the meaning of words. "Organically" indeed does mean slowly and over time, as a plant grows. The sudden composition of these prayers overnight is the antithesis of organic development and contrary to the reform that Vatican II called for.
While there was room for reform, the minor adjustments that Vatican II called for were mainly accomplished by the reform of 1965. There was no need for the revolution that was introduced by the new Mass.
Anthony - What is the timeline for organic development that you would deem acceptable. How fast/slow is "gradual."
"There is no precedence (sic)" isn't determinative. There was no precedent for "fiddle back" chasubles . . . until they appeared. There was no precedent for organs in churches . . . until they were invented and installed. There was no precedent for laity reading the Scripture at mass . . . until they did.
The church has given us the NO and for the reasons I have stated to you twice now, the NO is as traditional, understood properly, as any liturgy of the Church.
Post a Comment