Sileri non possum pits Andrea Grillo against an Italian blogger, Enzo Bianchi in a commentary that you can read HERE, in English.
It concerns Bianchi’s desire for liturgical peace in the Church as it concerns the two forms of the one Roman Rite as Pope Benedict XVI declared it to be.
He has some influence with the Vatican and popes.
I like what he has to say and what Grillo wants is typical of his liturgical ideology and should be heard and then dismissed.
If one truly understood Summorum Pontificum, liturgical peace, which is exactly what Pope Benedict desired with this document, would have happened if bishops had been on board with it. By this I mean, bishops actively involved in the development of the reintegration of the Vetus Ordo into parish life and priests who chose to celebrate it.
What I didn’t like about how SP was implemented, is that bishops seem to be disengaged with seminarians who were becoming radicalized by the Vetus Ordo “rad trads” and thus not loving the rubrical celebration of the Novus Ordo. That first Masses in the Vetus Ordo went unchecked is not the fault of SP but of local bishops. The Vetus Ordo should not be imposed on congregations not accustomed to it and not asking for it, even for a first Mass.
Pope Benedict made clear that the Novus Ordo was the Ordinary, regular Mass of the Church and that the Vetus Ordo was now the exception but allowed, extraordinary in the sense of not being better but the exception and thus must have some rules regarding its celebration in parochial settings and by priests who should have their bishop’s imprimatur to do so.
This is the question and answer from Bianchi:
“What would *you* do to heal the rift with the traditionalists?” I replied then what I reply even now: for the sake of liturgical peace—*pax eucharistica*—let the following absolute requirements be established:
– For those who celebrate the *Vetus Ordo*:
1) To recognize the validity of the four Eucharistic Prayers of the Missal of Paul VI, as well as the *Ordo Missae* that bears his name.
2) To concelebrate at the Chrism Mass presided over by the bishop, in order to bear witness to the unity of the Church and of the presbyterate gathered around the bishop.
3) Not to disparage the liturgies reformed by the Second Vatican Council.
4) To accept the dogmatic constitutions of the Second Vatican Council (*Sacrosanctum Concilium*, *Dei Verbum*, *De Ecclesia*).
– For those who celebrate the *Ordo* of the liturgical reform:
Not to disparage the *Vetus Ordo*, and to regard traditionalists as full Catholics—in every respect—while respecting their liturgies and their signs.
– For everyone, clarity is essential: there can be no possibility of an unregulated, indiscriminate adherence to one *Ordo*…
7 comments:
For those ordained exclusively for the veto ordo, forced concelebration might be a bridge too far. They could, however, willingly participate "in choro."
The 4 Eucharistic Prayers are a direct impediment to "unity." Only the Roman Canon should be used
I have no problem with any of the new ones except the children’s which thanks be to God are not in the Roman Missal any longer. However the Ordinariate’s missal only has two, the Roman Canon which is persecutor Sundays and Eucharist Pr as yet II that may be used for weekday Masses, funerals, weddings.
I don’t understand the fixation on concelebration but for the Chrism Mass and Holy Thursday’ Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper, that isn’t too much to ask, but yes “in chirp” should suffice,
Choro not chirp! Auto spell curse!
Although chirp works!
Father,
If only the Roman Canon was used on Sundays and Major Feasts, AND, the introductory rites containing the Confiteor, I think the progressives would have a better argument about "unity." I also find it amusing that women do not DEMAND the Roman Canon since it contains the names of the women's saints and therefore, more "inclusive." Otherwise depending on the parish and/or the priest it is in look and feel a very different form of the Mass.
Post a Comment