Posted on 11/10/2005 10:03:40 AM PST by Petrosius
From his friends in Milano Don Capisco hears that in August 2005 a document was prepared in the Roman Curia aimed at preventing a more widespread use of the "old" Roman Missal.
The text is said to have been prepared last August by the Congregation for Divine Worship, and to bear the signatures of the Cardinal Prefect Francis Arinze and his right hand man, Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino, according to a report published at the end of October in the respected Milanese newspaper "Il Giornale," which belongs to the Berlusconi group and seldom hesitates at reporting Catholic topics.
The report stresses that the Congregation's text is not to be taken as an official statement of the dicastery, but is rather intended as a mere expression of opinion. Cardinal Arinze, according to "Il Giornale," believes that it would not be possible to liberalise the use of the "old" Missal because it has been done away with. The text was obviously presented to the Pope.
That is why it was probably not by accident that a few weeks ago, at a press conference on 12 October during the bishops' Synod on the Eucharist, Cardinal Arinze declared that "not a single Synod Father" had made any special effort on behalf of the "old" Mass.
As a matter of fact, however, only three days earlier the subject had indeed been broached by a Curia Cardinal, Dario Castrillon Hoyos. He is of course Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to which is entrusted the pastoral care of the faithful who follow the "old" rite.
His Eminence expressed the hope that the "old" Mass find mention in the final document of the Synod, and be recognised as one of the various rites in the Catholic Church.
The August opinion of Cardinal Arinze and Archbishop Sorrentino is plainly a very clear counterpoint to the hopes and desires of the Ecclesia Dei President.... But then, too, the opinion expressed by the leaders of the Congregation for Divine Worship seems to be at odds with the attitude of the Supreme Pontiff gloriously reigning....
The former Cardinal Ratzinger has declared on several occasions that bishops should be less niggardly in granting approval for the "old" rite. The legitimate liturgist recalls, for instance, the words uttered by the then Prefect of the Holy Office on the tenth anniversary of the Motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei adflicta" on 24 October 1998.
At that time the eminent Prelate recalled a statement of John Henry Cardinal Newman ( +1890) to the effect that in the course of her long history the Church never simply did away with orthodox liturgical forms, or forbade them : "that would have been completely foreign to the spirit of the Church."
An orthodox liturgy is never a mere conglomeration of ceremonies assembled for purely pragmatic reasons which one could then, in a positivistic sense, re-arrange one way today, and differently tomorrow. Orthodox forms of a rite are living realities which have grown out of the loving dialogue between the Church and her Lord; they are forms of the Church's very life in which the faith, the prayer and the life of many generations has been distilled and concentrated, and in which the mutual interplay of God's action and man's response has taken shape and form.
Depending upon changing historical situations, the Church has authority to restrict and regulate the use of such rites, "but the Church never simply forbids them."
Why, on the one hand, would Arinze do this, while a few months earlier, lead Solemn Vespers with Juventutem?
I can only think (assuming that the report is true) that it is internal politics. I have spoken on two occasions with Cardinal Arinze and he was very unsupportive of either the old Mass or of the Novus Ordo in Latin. He was more interested in respecting the authority of the local bishops. Hopefully this is his personal position that he is trying to advance and not that of the Holy Father who has been much more supportive of the old Mass.
makes me glad he was not elected pope even though some thought of him as papable.
Ditto!
Cardinal Arinze is a relatively conservative prelate when it comes to doctrinal matters. Liturgically, however, he has always been a staunch supporter of the new Mass (insisting upon rubrical norms in the process). Like nearly all of the current crop of bishops, however, he has a lot at stake, simply by way of human nature, in validating the new liturgy as the fruit and culmination of, effectively, his entire ministry. No one likes to be told, or see evidence that a whole career is largely a failure.
True reform, whether a revamping of the current missale, or a scaling back to the Tridentine usage, or something else, is not likely to have full and lasting effect until the last of the bishops ordained or consecrated within 20 years of Vatican II has died. Pope Benedict may jumpstart the process with a rumored universal indult or apostolic administration for the old Mass, but there will be lots of foot-dragging. The old saying that "The wheels of Rome grind slowly, but they grind to powder" will be especially apt in describing Rome's slow but inexorable march to a return to universally embraced orthodoxy and orthopraxis.
Those of us in the traditionalist camp might get some of the things we would like to see in a more liberalized use of the Tridentine Mass, but we probably will never see it as a universal norm. Meanwhile, the majority of Catholics in the world will see a return to liturgical orthopraxis, too, under this pontificate, based on the revamping of the Novus Ordo. But that will take a very long time to be completed, indeed.
Personally, I think the best solution is to find a way to make the de facto split of two distinct Western Rites a de jure reality. There will never be "closure" on the issue until the traditionalists feel they can avail themselves of the older tradition without molestation and a sense of third-class citizenship, and the Novus Ordo adherents can worship in their way that has become normalized over the last 35 years without suspicion of laxity. Simply conceding the two-way liturgical entrenchment and moving back to doctrinal unity is the way to go.
The (revamped) NO and Tridentine usage could exist side by side much like the Maronites and Melchites do in the Middle East, for example. A generation or two of flux in memberships might have to go by before the equivalent of ancestral attachment could develop, but that's the price to be paid for long-term stability and cohesion.
Rumor has it (from seemingly all corners) that something will be announced from Rome on or about November 19 that may lay a foundation for this very sort of thing. A universal indult or apostolic administration for the old Mass, backed by a directive to the bishops to be open to it, might bring the first step to healing from within the Church, and might, just possibly, be the first step in the process to healing the ultra-traditionalist schism. Time will tell.
* That will be a rare day indeed; virtually unprecedented.
You made some good points but all biased in favor of your desires. Those opposed to the reform of the Liturgy have just as much at stake, actually more.
BTW, I am a traditionalist who goes, nearly exclusively, to the Pauline Rite. All Christian Catholics who preserve the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority are "traditionalists."
As it is the Magisterium which decides what is and isn't Tradition, why is it those opposed to the Magisterium think the modifier "traditional" applies only to those Christian Catholics opposed to Vatican Two, Liturgical Reform, and the Magisterium, etc? Those opposed to the Magisterium never consider it an apt description of those who maintain the Bonds of Unity. Quite revealing, no?
As a practice, it reveals Pride at work and it makes no logical sense and is a kissing-cousin practice of protestants who think they, not the Magisterium, have the authority to decide what the Bible does and does not mean. They label themselves "bible-believing" the same way those opposed to the Magisterium label themselves "traditionalists"
The simple fact of the matter is Christian Catholics who maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority are Bible-Believing Traditionalists.
This used to be a well-recognized tautology. That those who lab themselves "traditioanlists" are, apparently, unaware of it, to say nothing of being in violation of that Traditional orthopraxis, ought to be an eye-opener for those who give themselves special status as "traditionalists."
Well, yess, I suppose that my points were biased, but, then, the whole post was written as my opinion, no?
I think the issue you have about my use of the term "traditionalists" stems in part from a lack of precise definitions available. I use the term in what has become, for better or ill, a common, shorthand understanding that has taken on a life of its own. Nowhere do I say that Catholic traditions are the exclusive commodity of those who favor the "old rite." Nor do I even lend any credence or standing to those in schism, who, the one time I mention them, I prefer to call ultra-traditionalists. Quickly writing a sentence or two at a time at work, I don't have time or space to write tomes for the purpose of clarifying terminology before I get to my point. "Traditionalist" and "ultra-traditionalist" are a form of shorthand that pretty much everyone who has an interest in this thread already understands, even if they're not exactingly precise. Were I writing about my perspective as a "traditionalist" in an area not immediately connected to those things people commonly associate with the old rite, I suppose more qualifiers are in order.
But, really, I don't think the issue of terminology is all that worthy of taking offense. In one sense (I concede it is not all-inclusive of all parts of the orthodox Catholic spectrum) the adherents to the Tridentine usage *are* traditionalists, at least to the extent that they have solid arguments for pointing out that, as regards liturgy, their appeal to the need for organic development to have been better considered by Paul VI, as opposed to a radical restructuring, *is*, in fact, an appeal to liturgical "tradition."
As it is, circumstances force me into both liturgies somewhat. After much searching in the Boston area, I have found a Novus Ordo Mass reasonable true to its rubrical form that I attend on weekdays. On Sundays and holidays, the only days available to me in the not-so-"wide-and-generous" application of the *indult* Tridentine Mass, I go where my heart is. What is so wrong with that, when it is, according to John Paul II, a perfectly legitimate "aspiration"?
Reading some of your responses to posts about Pius X members, I notice that you *really* don't like them! That's fine with me. Idon't care much for them, either. To me, they're "Protestants in fiddleback vestments," as I'm wont to say. But not all people attached to the old Mass are just a skin scratch away from being schismatics. I think you need to appreciate that fact a little bit more, too. Let's meet halfway on this one: I'll be more careful to qualify "traditionalist," if you try to understand that those of us "indult Mass traditionalists" would like a little respect as acknowledged in the indult, and also understand that, daily, we get set upon by both sides, trying to be patient while we wait for the full application of our rights.
Dear magisterium,
From what I've seen, I don't think that bornacatholic has any beef with folks because they assist at indult Masses. Sometimes, I think he forgets who's who, and who assists at licit indult Masses versus those who have disregarded the teaching of Pope John Paul II on this issue. However, I've never read bornacatholic knowingly criticizing anyone merely because they prefer to assist at indult Masses.
Bornacatholic, tell me if that misrepresents your view.
However, I think bornacatholic makes a good point that those of us who assist at the normative Mass of the Latin Church, and who try to genuinely follow Catholic teaching, are also properly called "traditionalists." As well, I think that bornacatholic's unspoken issue is that many so-called "traditionalists" (even those who manage to technically stay inside the Church) often call folks like me and bornacatholic "neo-Catholics" or "Novus Ordoites," or whatever, and this is offensive. So, they are the "traditionalists," and we are the "neo-Caths." Barf.
Myself, I prefer to call myself a Catholic. Not a traditional Catholic, or Catholic traditionalist, or a neo-Catholic, or a Novus Ordoite, but just a plain, unencumbered, unmodified, unqualified Catholic. If pressed, you can call me a Roman Catholic, as I am a member of the Latin Church.
sitetest
I just used your post as a jumping-off point to make a few comments about things that rankle me..
I appreciate your response, brother, and I apologize if what I posted was too arguementative but I agree with the prior Pope Benedict...
AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV
22. The success of every society of men, for whatever purpose it is formed, is bound up with the harmony of the members in the interests of the common cause. Hence We must devote Our earnest endeavours to appease dissension and strife, of whatever character, amongst Catholics, and to prevent new dissensions arising, so that there may be unity of ideas and of action amongst all. The enemies of God and of the Church are perfectly well aware that any internal quarrel amongst Catholics is a real victory for them. Hence it is their usual practice when they see Catholics strongly united, to endeavour by cleverly sowing the seeds of discord, to break up that union. And would that the result had not frequently justified their hopes, to the great detriment of the interests of religion! Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.
23. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.
24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
I agree with you that we are all properly just plain ol' Catholics. People being the way they are, however, labels develop that are not always precise or considerate, and then take on a life of their own. "Traditionalist" was used by me in this context, since, considering the subject of this thread, I figure it's sufficient shorthand for a concept that anyone likely to be interested in this thread would likely understand.
Since I have at least a toe in both camps during the course of a week (with another toe still somewhat attached to the Melkites, where I spent the entirety of the 1980's in an effort to flee from the silliness well under way in my local parish), I think I understand the sensitivities of all involved. Believe me, I know there are at least a few folks in my Latin Mass venue who are not even convinced of the validity of the NO, nevermind the peripherals. I spend more time remonstrating with them about their position than I want to get into. All the same, I see plenty of hostility to the Latin Mass people from the Novus ordo folks, too. And the barriers set up by our archbishop and his chancery to deliberately wither our "rightful aspirations" on the vine are the quintessence if mean-spiritedness.
All of which gets me back to the point I was trying to make on the original post. As long as the Western Church fosters a uniform, across-the-board orthopraxis and orthodoxy with respect to the deposit of faith as it has organically developed over the history of our Church, perhaps it is time to consider that there are legitimate reasons for formally re-establishing the Tridentine Rite as a second Western Latin Rite. Once the two are truly legitimized in the eyes of all involved, perhaps all the carping and backbiting among brethren in the Faith can be put to rest.
Fair enough.
Dear magisterium,
I understand your points, and don't disagree with them. It's just that here at FR, in the past, there were a lot of flame-wars, and some of us got pretty sick of the contrast between alleged "traditionalists" and we evil "Novus Ordoite neo-Catholics."
At least here at FR, it's tough to find a Catholic poster who is negative toward the old rite, in and of itself. In fact, it's likely that if we could take a poll of active Catholic posters, a majority might prefer the old rite to the new.
As for myself, I vaguely remember the old rite, but during a transitional time, when it was actually said in English (at least it was where I lived in the last few years of the 1960s). I was pretty young when the new rite came into use, only about 10 or so. I noticed some of the changes, and I didn't personally like most of them, but didn't think to make much of a big deal about them. Neither am I opposed to the old rite, as my own memory of it, at least in English, was that the changes weren't so dramatic that I didn't recognize one thing to the other.
The Mass is still the Mass.
Certainly, in the post-Tridentine era, the Latin Church has really only had one normative rite, and I'm not sure that the folks who run the show would accept the idea of dual normative rites for the Latin Church. However, there were multiple rites before Pope St. Pius V introduced the then-new rite (now old rite), and I suppose, then, that one might make some claim to tradition to permit both side-by-side.
Are you one of the folks who thinks it's only worthwhile if in Latin, or are you okay if the old rite were also available in the vernacular?
sitetest
Forgive my ignorance, but if all rites are still "valid" (i.e. orthodox), why is the Church in the business of regulating and/or restricting them?
I wish I knew.
*It's her job. Your Bishop regulates your Liturgy, no?
* I don't forget enemies :)
Actually, you're right. When asked who I am, I respond "I am a Christian."
But, I thought you were a Catholic?
Then I begin apologetics 101
* Amen, brother. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass, you might say. We Christians have always had one Mass; many Rites, Liturgies, etc, but, one Mass.
I'm one of those ""biritualists" too--Novus Ordo on weekdays, but I belong to a traditional parish with the 62 Missal.
I get what you both are saying about not labeling ourselves--nevertheless, I think there's some value in recognizing that some of us like, prefer, and want to attend the traditional Mass. And it helps to give us a name, and that name is "traditionalist"; I wouldn't call a person who prefers the normative Mass that word even if they were totally 100% orthodox.
Probably not the best name, I agree, but hopefully someone'll come up with a better one. Old Believers? LOL
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.