Posted on 06/19/2005 9:33:26 PM PDT by Lady In Blue
Pope set to return to traditional liturgy:-
VATICAN CITY | June 19, 2005 5:11:27 AM IST
Pope Benedict XVI wants to restore the traditional ceremonial Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, with Latin instead of the vernacular and Gregorian chants.
Vatican expert Sandro Magister reported in his weekly newsletter Saturday that the pope is expected to replace Archbishop Pietro Marini, his predecessor Pope John Paul II's master of liturgical ceremonies.
Whoever follows Marini will have orders to restore the traditional style and choreography of papal ceremonies in St. Peter's.
Out will go the international Masses so dear to Pope John Paul II's heart, with such innovations as Latin American and African rhythms and even dancing, multi-lingual readings and children in national costumes bringing gifts to the altar.
Pope Benedict wants to return to the Sistine Chapel choirs singing Gregorian chant and the church music of such composers as Claudio Monteverdi from the 17th century. He also wants to revive the Latin Mass.
Archbishop Marini always planned the ceremonies with television in mind, Magister said, and that emphasis will remain. A decade ago the Vatican set up a system for transmitting papal ceremonies world wide via multiple satellites.
(UPI)
"How about...If an arch-angel holds the Blessed Mother is such high esteem, why shouldn't we as mortal men?"
I'm on board with all that. What I thought I heard was an assertion that it was Catholic dogma that one can only be saved through the Blessed Virgin.
Did #376 adequately answer your concerns on my assertion?
And I didn't suggest that. I suggested doing away with Paul VI's banal and atraditional rite.
I'm all for the Tridentine Rite celebrated in the vernacular and in Latin. I'm less concerned about the Latin language than I am about that rite. In fact, I've seen the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, at an Anglo-Catholic Episcopal parish. It was very much the way I think things should be.
3400 Old Alabama Rd
Alpharetta, GA ...
Beautiful new Church. Excellent Pastor. Warm, welcoming parishoners. Superb choir
I thought that Goodbye was originally God be with ye.
*We are in perfect disagreement.
I'm all for the Tridentine Rite celebrated in the vernacular and in Latin. I'm less concerned about the Latin language than I am about that rite. In fact, I've seen the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, at an Anglo-Catholic Episcopal parish. It was very much the way I think things should be.
*I am hapy with the liturgy at my Parish. We are a multi-ethnic Parish with SRO crowds which includes scores of converts from Protestantism and, what, maybe 10 Jews or so.
But, I am easily pleased (and spoiled). I would be happy at a clown mass if that was the only thing available. At least it would be Mass and we have brothers and sisters around the world who don't have access to any Mass.
I am not directing this at you personally but I take this ocasion to note that there is a noticeable lack of gratitude from we Christians who have EASY access to the Liturgy. We are so spoiled we quibble and fight and demand we be given thus and such. And if we don't get it, we raise a storm and/or schism. Occasionally, we should be grateful for what we do have.
General Audience June 8, 2005. Pope Benedict's exegesis of Psalm 110
In sum, the Psalm us at the end to discover all the good things the Lord gives us every day. We see more easily the negative aspects of our life. The Psalm invites us to see the positive also, the many gifts we receive, and so find gratitude, as only a grateful heart can celebrate worthily the litugy of thanksgiving, the Eucharist.
"You are, honey," she'd reply as my cousins would glare at me in anger while I would grin gloatingly.
I loved Holidays.
Treasures, huh? Very kind indeed!
We may have been over this ground before, but the way I read Ratzinger's comments is in this light: he seems to be pointing out that because the N.O. was presented as something new, it gave license for all sorts of abuses. It gave the impression that liturgy could be created out of whole cloth -- the logical conclusion that many took this to seems to have been, "well, it's all been changed anyway, so my own pet changes won't hurt a thing and will actually be in the spirit of things." He seems to be saying that if the N.O. had been presented differently, there would have been fewer abuses.
It could be that Ratzinger thinks that all of the N.O. options are equally good, but I doubt it. My suspicion is that in practice he uses N.O. options that are most closely drawn from the "real" liturgical tradition of Christendom, as opposed to those that are obvious new compositions. But I'm just guessing.
Other things that Ratzinger has written have indicated that he thought that there was a radical break, and that he disapproves. As a good and obedient Catholic, he of course is not going to say that what was put out by earlier popes was flat-out wrong. But there is a difference between saying that something is "not wrong" and saying that it is good.
If you had the opportunity to attend a Tridentine Mass served in Anglo-Catholic fashion, as HC mentioned that he had, elsewhere in this thread -- which would be just a straight translation into good English, using traditional rubrics -- I think you would see that there has been a rather significant break. I fully understand that the N.O. had papal approval, therefore by definition it is acceptable -- but just because two liturgies are both "officially approved" does not mean that both are equally in the liturgical tradition.
What I seem to see (again, as an outsider looking in) here on FR with many N.O. defenders, is a sort of perverse pride in just how much liturgical nonsense and ugliness one's Catholic loyalty allows one to be able to stand. The better a Catholic you are, the more you can take! :-) I know that you were being tongue in cheek when elsewhere on this thread you said you wouldn't mind a clown mass -- that you were just grateful to have access to a mass, but I couldn't help thinking that this was a very interesting statement.
I can't imagine saying that about the Divine Liturgy, quite frankly, and not just because I am (yes, I admit it) hard to please. Yes, I swallow hard and remind myself that a poorly served Liturgy is still the Liturgy (I'd have to think back to try to remember when that last happened), and that the communion I receive is still the Body and Blood of Christ -- but given a choice, I would avoid the experience and seek out a Liturgy that is served traditionally and well.
Part of this is perhaps a difference in how Orthodox think about the Liturgy as opposed to how Catholics have tended to think about the Mass, though. For many Catholics, it seems to be a utilitarian thing, where the words of institution are all that is really necessary, and the rest is window-dressing that can be changed at will. The Orthodox seem to tend to think more "holistically" about the Liturgy... I think that book that came out years ago, "Why Catholics Can't Sing" talked some about this utilitarian strain of thought...
That sort of utilitarian minimalism is, frankly, disgusting--it's led to abominations like priests sitting on the sidelines, only getting called to the altar to do (Lord have mercy) a "quickie" consecration and sit back down.
In our current madness we have much to learn from the East on this score.
This attitude reminds me of the Monty Python skit "We Were So Poor"
Only in this case its "My Mass is so bad ..."
I can't imagine saying that about the Divine Liturgy, quite frankly, and not just because I am (yes, I admit it) hard to please. Yes, I swallow hard and remind myself that a poorly served Liturgy is still the Liturgy (I'd have to think back to try to remember when that last happened), and that the communion I receive is still the Body and Blood of Christ -- but given a choice, I would avoid the experience and seek out a Liturgy that is served traditionally and well.
Well, perhaps it isn't too. A poorly enough done Liturgy is a sacrilege, or worse, invalid. To participate in it recognizing it for what it is joins you to that sin. To participate in an invalid Mass is idolatry, since part of the Liturgy is the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist.
Part of this is perhaps a difference in how Orthodox think about the Liturgy as opposed to how Catholics have tended to think about the Mass, though. For many Catholics, it seems to be a utilitarian thing, where the words of institution are all that is really necessary, and the rest is window-dressing that can be changed at will.
This is the Irish heritage. Being persecuted by the English Protestants, they could not have High Mass, and could not ring bells. The men had to stand guard at the back of the Church (or out in the meadow if ther was no Church) on watch for the persecutors. Hundreds of years of this does tend to make one innurred to it. And to then see your persecutors take over the joyous singing of Mass and the ringing of bells in the mockery of a Liturgy only twists the knife in deeper to severe the nerves. The Irish took this sort of Low Mass, formerly something attended out of devotion in addition to the Parochial High Mass, and transformed it into the normative mode of worship, then transported it across the oceans to America, Australia, Canada, India, England, etc. The Irish could never understand the penchant of other Europeans for singing at Mass, and they actively persecuted European Catholics who attempted to retain their traditions in the US, causing the rise of several new schisms (the Polish National Catholic Church and the Ruthenian and Ukranian Orthodox Churches), while doing everything in their power to prevent the healing of another (the Anglo-Catholics).
The Orthodox seem to tend to think more "holistically" about the Liturgy... I think that book that came out years ago, "Why Catholics Can't Sing" talked some about this utilitarian strain of thought...
Many Catholics elsewhere also think in this manner, as do some here, such as myself.
I'd like to see public masses only be sung Masses (like in the Orthodox Church). The Gregorian Chant of the ordinary is simple enough to learn, and there are simplified forms in the Gregorian modes for the few parts that are complex (Introit, Gradual, Offertory, and Communion Antiphons) that any parishoner could sing.
Unfortunately, even among traditionalist Catholics, probably a majority hark back to the days of either the "Blessed Muttering" of the Low Mass, or the Operaticly performed spectacle High Mass with 18th century chamber music and the like, where the laity were reduced to appreciators of classical music, rather than worshippers.
Nobody seems to want to promote what St. Pius X and Pius XI really wanted, which was for the people to actively participate at Mass by always singing their portions of the liturgy in Gregorian Chant. Its sad because it is so simple and so beautiful, and to anyone who is truly Catholic, so traditional and orthodox.
It is true that all Orthodox liturgies are sung, but the people don't necessarily sing everything not assigned to the clergy.
What is probably most common, at least in America is a mix of choir, solo chanters, and congregation.
There are a few parishes that try to have the congregation sing everything, but it frankly is terribly distracting, since we have so much variable material in our services, particularly at Vespers and Matins -- it requires a lot of photocopying and handouts, and doesn't seem to reflect the Orthodox liturgical ethos, IMHO.
The key to having the congregation sing along on the responses (and we have a lot of them), is that the fixed portions of the Orthodox Liturgy never change in text (that's just how our liturgies work) -- and wise chanters/choir directors stick to simple chant melodies and don't change them. That way, over time, those who regularly attend learn text and melodies alike by heart. I am personally of the opinion that having books for the congregation actually interferes with this process of memorization.
For the variable material, this is either sung by the choir, or by a solo chanter. This material is best prayed by the congregation via active and attentive listening. Over time, even some of the variable material is learned by heart (especially troparia). There are also a few portions of the services that are designed to be more melismatic, and often work best as set pieces for the choir or a solo chanter -- such as the Cherubic Hymn.
Ideal liturgies involve a balance of priest(s), deacon (if you're lucky enough to have one), tonsured reader, choir, solo chanter(s), and congregation. It is very natural and fluid.
There are some Russian churches where the choir does everything and the people are expected to be quiet -- same for some Greek churches with a master psaltis whom everyone is expected just to listen to. But it is a rare Orthodox parish, again, at least in America -- where a good portion of the congregation doesn't join in with ease on the fixed portions of the services...
* I was wondering what that comment might generate. It certainly is open to various interpretations. I should elaborate. I am a stickler for authentic Liturgy and I have spoken directly and privately with my Bishop about abuses; same goes for my Pastor. The point my comment was getting at was the essential truth that Liturgy is the action of Jesus offering himself to God as a Sacrifice of propitiation on our behalf. Even in a clown mass that would be the reality. Of course, I'd consider it an abomination were I to be at a clown mass yet I would be required to be happy even in that personal Calvary-moment because the reality of Calvary re-presented exists. And everything is Grace and Grace apprehended ought cause us happiness - if we are radical Christians.
As to my citation of Card Ratzinger, we disagree on our interpretations of what he meant. In my mind, the Cardinal's thought, combined with Pope Paul VI's explanation the Liturgy has been reformed as per the Council, convinces me the reform is a legitimate reform within tradition.
*Speaking of Monty Python "pull the other one." If all I have access to is a clown Mass, I fulfill my duty to Keep Holy the Lord's Day and I still recieve Jesus, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist. While I am an active participant in that Mass I am in no way responsible for the actions of the priest. He is responsible before God for his own actions.
I too would like the Liturgy to be sung. As I understand it, that is tradition. Our masses used to be sung - by everyone; presiders and participants
"Did #376 adequately answer your concerns on my assertion?"
I take from #376 that you are not asserting that it is Catholic dogma that one can only be saved through the Blessed Virgin.
Can we start with that much? I'm still thinking about the rest.
Thanks!
This is the doctrine of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces. If by dogma you mean infallibily dogmatized, no it is not. If by dogma you mean common and universal teaching, yes it is.
http://www.tldm.org/news5/mediatrix1.htm
I'm a bit troubled by where all this leaves Our Lord.
He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one approaches the Father except through Him.
Because of her intitmate union with the Holy Spirit, and her Divine Maternity and thus her heavenly reign as Queen, the way to approach Christ is open only through Mary - hence her title "Porta Caeli" - "Gate of Heaven". The link you provide explains this perfectly.
Omnes cum Petro ad Jesum per Mariam - All with Peter to Jesus through Mary.
Any good beneficence we have from God the Father descends to us through the mediation of Jesus with the power of the Holy Spirit from the intercession of Mary.
If we did not believe this, there would be no reason for us to implore her intercession so often, nor would we have the confidence expressed in the Memorare or the wearing of the Scapular.
So you don't believe that any of the Persons of the Trinity ever acts directly to bestow a grace on a person?
Mary is to be credited with everything, since she bore Christ by the power and working of the Holy Spirit, and constantly attends to our needs. Without her, we would all be nothing, and with her God has willed her to be the effective bridge between divinity and humanity, not in the sense of Christ, were there was a union of nature to effect our redemption, but in the sense of a union of grace by the power of the Holy Spirit, to which we all hope to aspire, and to which she will lead her clients.
The Most Holy Trinity is not limited to working through Mary, but rather has chosen to do so. Ave fit ex Eva.
Read and imbibe:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4270
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.