Pope Set To Return To Traditional Liturgy

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.

I brought up SSPX/you brought up the strawman of SSPX Masses.

Anything regarding the SSPX came from YOU not ME. The whole argument is a straw man created by YOU. I feel zero compulsion to answer an argument that has nothing to do with this thread or ANYTHING that I've posted.

Some Chicago folks may think Bernardin is/was God. No actual Catholic believes such tripe.

Of course, but I would venture to say that is is more than "some" in Chicago who believe that.

The dupes at the Institute think that Serbia and Montenegro are ideal places:

No they don't, they merely recognize that the U.S. seems to side with the Muslim population rather than the Christian and that bombing some of the oldest cathedrals in Christendom was in fact, a shame. Things like that get lost in the world of political philistinism, though.

...never bother others by trying to do the right thing. Accept petty tyranny as a desireable way of life, at least for others.

Right. Like the USA's support of Saddam Hussein and Milosevic and any one of a number of petty dictators. Yeah, yeah, I know, when the liberal establishment of either party does it it's okay. If you're in the minority, better watch out in Black Elk's world.

If you answer the SSPX questions, you can affirm or deny effectively your connections or non-connections to SSPX. If you do not see fit to answer such simople questions, I will feel free to draw the obvious conclusion as to why.

Again, I feel no need to answer questions that are completely irrelevant. You are free to ASSUME what you like, but you know the old saw...(although the second half does not apply as I've already stated that I have NEVER attended an SSPX Mass. For that matter the ONLY association I've even had with any of them was on this forum).

If you want to talk with authority claiming Catholicism, necessarily you must reject schism. Your status vis-a-vis the schism and its excommunicated leaders is relevant.

Really? Okay, I reject schism. Dollars to donuts says this statement will not suffice for you.

You have so far given me no evidence to lead to a conclusion that I am wrong.

I see. Have you stopped beating your wife Black Elk?

Proud to be arrogant in judgment of those who presume to judge negatively the papacy and the Church, clothed in claimed Catholicism. You ARE, by your screenname, suggesting that you are Catholic, are you not?

I am Roman Catholic. Would you like the name of my Parish and Pastor? There is nothing particularly Catholic about saying the pope is above criticism. Why don't you go pick on Dante, translate him first so you can attack him better.

Although, if you actually sympathize with the "paleo" Institute crowd, how can any sensible person of any religious persuasion take you serously?

They, like the Church, take a longer view of history, unlike the neo-conmen who practice their Trotskyite realpolitik. Still waiting for those WMD's that they ALL swore/swear are there. Hmmm. All of the people on the planes were Saudi, yet they are our allies. Whatever. Let's go after the Iraqis. It all makes sense in the Lewis Carroll world of foreign policy according to those wonderful neo-conmen.

I promise not to be concerned over the fact that you and another poster, both of whom apparently refuse to answer simple questions as to schism and schismatics, are somehow offended because I disagree with your respective self-assessments and suspect that you sympathize with a schism that you will not explicitly recognize as schism despite papal judgment of it as schism, and with those excommunicated leaders (excommunicated by JP II) whose excommunication you will not explicitly recognize

Come on now. You can answer the questions. It is up to you whether you will answer the questions and up to me as to what conclusions I may draw from answers or non-answers.

Recognize humor when you see it and you will seem less like SSPX or like the paleofussandfeathers crowd.

This is laughable after the inquisition style posts that you posted with all the subtlety of a Howitzer. If you're going to shoot BE at least improve your aim. I'm sure between you and other like-minded Catholics, you've purged that dangerous and dreaded SSPX crowd from FR. I honestly cannot think of any one of their crowd who's left on here. I guess that means that simple orthodox yet traditional Roman Catholics like myself are the NEW Extreme. Now you don't want to get rid of little ol' me because then YOU would be the New Extreme, and they'll come after you. Then who ya gonna call?

Actually, it was the Patriarchate of Constantinople that was most "guilty" of forcing Greek onto peoples who didn't speak Greek -- in Romanian and Bulgaria in particular during the Ottoman era. The Patriarchate of Antioch, under influence from Constantinople, persisted in using Greek long after Greek was no longer the "lingua franca" of the Near East in the Muslim era. Ditto for the Orthodox Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria. Granted, a lot of this was affected by Muslim occupation, and wasn't necessary a reflection of the Orthodox ethos itself.

The Russians actually aided the Arabic Christians in the Patriarchate of Antioch, and eventually, Arabic was introduced into worship. I think the same is true of parish (although not monastic) usage in the Jerusalem Patriarchate. I'm not sure about Alexandria itself, but I do know that most Orthodox Christians in the Patriarchate of Alexandria are actually in sub-Saharan Africa, and languages other than Greek are usually used (often English, sometimes French, some native languages). The Russian mission to Alaska involved early translations into the native tongues, as did the Russian mission to Japan.

As to usage by Copts, etc..., I can't speak to this, but it seems to be pretty common for isolated or schismatic churches to be very conservative when it comes to liturgical language -- whether one is talking about Russian Old Believers in Oregon, Copts in Egypt, etc. Orthodox parishes in the emigration often clung to the old languages long after critical masses of their parishioners could really understand the texts. This was also true of some Protestant immigrants as well in the past centuries.

All this is a moot point, I think -- I doubt that the Latin mass will make a comeback. I am more concerned about the poor quality of English in the modern Roman missals. They are a bad influence on many Orthodox, who think that we should try to sound equally bland and casual in our translations... I periodically have to point out that the RC's did many beautiful translations of their own liturgies into proper liturgical English in the pre-Vat II era. I have any number of missals, Bibles, etc... of this vintage at home. God only knows why none of that stuff gets used...

I can't give yes or no answers, because I am not competent to do so. Besides, it's not a matter of urgency for me, since I am not "adhering to" or affiliated with SSPX, or attending their Masses.

"Were the consecrations of four bishops at Econe chosen by and consecrated by Marcel Lefebvre in direct violation of papal orders Canonically lawful or licit (as opposed to valid) consecrations?"

Well, in that the Holy Father had forbidden them, I don't see how they could have been lawful.

"Was Marcel Lefebvre excommunicated?"

http://www.latin-mass.org/excommunication.html

"Did Marcel die excommunicated?"

How could I know that?

"Were those adhering to SSPX adjudged by JP II to be in schism?"

There seems to be some confusion surrounding that issue, in that the Vatican has said that the faithful may attend SSPX Masses. I'm not even sure what would constitute "adhering to."

"Four simple questions to clear any doubt: yes or no will suffice. Rationalizations are quite unnecessary."

I disagree that all of these questions are amenable to yes or no answers. There are a lot of charges and counter-charges flying around, decrees, letters, sanctions, reversals of sanctions...the only thing that seems clear to me is that you really have a case of the red@ss for the SSPX.

"Without her intercession, no one is saved."

You want to point me to a Catholic source on that?

Keep in mind this is a moral necessity, not an asbolute necessity.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Glories of Mary", Chapters 5 "The Necessity of the Intercession of Mary for our Salvation"

Several authorities quoted:

"Father Suarez concludes, that it is the sentiment of the universal Church, 'that the intercession and prayers of Mary are, above those of all others, not only useful but necessary' (De Incarnatione, p. 2, d. 23, s. 3)"

"St. Peter Damian remarks, 'that God would not become man without the consent of Mary; in the first place, that we might feel ourselves under great obligations to her; and in the second, that we might understand that the salvation of all is left to the care of this Blessed Virgin.' (Paciucch. in Ps. 86, exc. 1)"

"St. Ildephonsus says, 'I desire to the the servant of the Son; but because no one will ever be so without serving the Mother, for this reason I desire the servitude of Mary.' (De Virginis Mariae, c. 12)"

Similarly in St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort, in "True Devotion to Mary".

He notes the statement of St. John Damascene: "To be devout to you, O Holy Virgin, is an arm of salvation which God gives to those whom He wishes to save."

Similarly, in the Tridentine Breviary, the Collect of the Assumption reads:

"Forgive, O Lord, we beseech thee, the sins of thy servants: that we who by our own deeds are unable to please thee, may be saved by the intercession of the Mother of thy Son our Lord"

The English word "Hail" best translates "Salve". It's a respectful greeting (not a "hi, how are you doing?").

No that is exactly what it means.

Again, salve comes from the verb salvere, which refers to health, wellness, and salvation. Towards a person, saying "Salve" is rather like saying "Are you well?"

My "Classic Latin-English and English-Latin Dictionary" notes the following:

"save, v. tr., ... 3. God save you, salve, ave, salvere te jubeo (at meeting), salve et vale (at parting)"

"salve, salveo, v. (salvus), to be well in health, found chiefly in the forms salve, salvete, salveto, salvebis, salvere (jubeo), used by the Romans as a greeting, Good day! I hope you are well? How are you? a. in welcoming a person, Good day! good morning! ... b. in taking farewell, good-bye! God be with you! vale, salve"

There is no entry for "salvare" because this is a later ecclesiastical derived word of salvere.

Again, "Gruss Gott" is also respectful greeting in Bavaria, but it means much more than "Hello", although it is used to say "Hello".

Just as "Vaya con Dios" in Spanish means more than "Goodbye".

Obviously, we aren't asking Blessed Mary "How are you doing?", nor are we saying "God save you" to her.

This leads us back to what exactly we are trying to communicate using the imperative form (a command) of a verb meaning "to be well, to be in good health, to save".

Again, I have no objection to translating it "Hail", because "Hail" is the Anglo-Saxon form of the German "Heil" which means "to be well, to be in good health, to be whole, to save", exactly the same meanings as "salvere".

These words are all related, as the German form follows the Greek in coming down from the Indo-European original in turning the "s" to an "h", thus in Greek "holos".

You keep trying to run away from what is right there in front of you, but you can't escape the meaning.

... The N.O. masses radically broke that tradition...

*Argueable. As a Cardinal, Ratzinger had this to say

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy

Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents in concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.

In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer.

IMO, there wasn't a radical break.

Also, the great Liturgical historian (whom Pope Benedict praises highly), Fr. Joseph A. Jungmann, SJ, noted It is not the fact of antiquity that makes liturgical customs valuable, but their fulness of content and their expressive value. Even newer ceremonies, like the priest's blessing at the end of Mass, can possess a great beauty.

As an Orthodox Christian, I also believe that liturgy must be in a liturgical dialect close enough to the vernacular that it can be a natural language of prayer with minimal effort. To me, the Latin mass falls flat on its face on those grounds. Native Italian or Spanish-speakers, maybe. Irish, Germans, Americans.... Chinese?

*Agreed. That is also my personal opinion.

This sets up a real class-system, in terms of who can really learn, memorize, and digest the services. There have been times when liturgical languages with no relation to the native languages have been imposed in the Orthodox world: Greek imposed for a time in Arabic-speaking countries and in Bulgaria under the Ottomans, Slavonic being standard-issue in Romania for a time. It didn't have good spiritual effects.

*Agreed. That is one reason I posted the directions of the 17th Century S.C. which, note, followed Trent and Quo Primum, the "proof text" so many of my brethren cite to "prove" the Pauline Rite and a vernacular Liturgy is anathema to God.

Reading a libretto and becoming familiar with a foreign language just isn't the same. This move to the vernacular was something very positive about Vat II for Catholics. I can only regret that for some reason that English tranlations use a very tin-eared version of the language, and seemingly deliberately mistranslated certain things.

* I'll admit it was a big change for me, at first. Now, I can feel comfort in either the Indult or the Pauline Rite but the many converts I know prefer the vernacular. IMO, so do the vast majority of my fellow pew denizens

As an Orthodox Christian, not only the words must be part of an unbroken tradition, but also liturgical action (e.g. is the priest facing the same direction that Christian priests faced for 2 millenia?), vestments, iconography, chant traditions, architecture... must be part of an unbroken tradition. Again, what I see in N.O. parishes on these scores is sorely lacking. There were radical changes and breaks after Vatican II that really had no precedent.

*Amen, brother. Amen that is except for a few things. Jungmann, In one case, in fact, we are told of a direct interference by a German ruler in the shaping of the liturgy of Rome; when Henry II came to the Eternal City for his imperial coronation in 1014, he asked as a favor that at Rome also the Credo be sung at Mass as long was the case in the North.

What is interesting is that in the attempt to make the Mass more "accessible," it seems to have actually been made more complex -- so many choices, so many options, so many variations on liturgical action at the discretion of the priest. There should be one core text of the Liturgy, with the only variations being the propers of the feasts and seasons.

* I am semi-serious when I say liturgical regulations should be reduced in size so as to fit on an index card but that assumes Seminary training in authentic liturgy in a Diocese with an orthodox Bishop who really does Teach, Rule, and Sanctify. (It also assumes a Missal/Missals aproved by Rome) IMO, the Bishop should have near plenipotentiary power when it comes to the Liturgy but I know that is an opinion both private and isolated.

Anyway, those are my observations from the outside. I think that from what I have read of B16's writings, he would favor a traditionally served mass in good vernacular, with a text based on that of the Tridentine, but reformed according to the lights of Vatican II. His writings certainly indicate that he would dearly love to turn around and face the right direction when serving... But he of course understands that one radical upheaval in a generation is probably one too many, and adding another wouldn't necessarily be good. I suspect he will little by little lead by example.

*Agreed. Thanks for the response. You and Mr. K are treasures.

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.