Posted on 02/14/2006 7:48:12 AM PST by NYer
Today the Pope’s meeting with the Capidicasterio about the SSPX finished with the decision of “keeping the discussion open” until the next meeting in late March.
According to some sources, the canonical aspect of the possible agreement that would bring the Lefebvrists fully back to the Church is well under way, but Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation of the Liturgy and the Discipline of the Sacraments seems to be hesitant about making easier the use of the old Missal.
According to the sources, the Cardinal fears that if the Mass of Pious V would be made available without the need of the local bishop’s permission, the consequence would be even greater liturgical confusion.
Are you kidding me!? How much more "confused" can we get?
This should come as no surprise. At the October 2005 Synod, one of the African bishops expressed a similar concern.
**Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation of the Liturgy and the Discipline of the Sacraments seems to be hesitant about making easier the use of the old Missal.
According to the sources, the Cardinal fears that if the Mass of Pious V would be made available without the need of the local bishop’s permission, the consequence would be even greater liturgical confusion.**
Continuing to follow............
The funny thing to me is that he goes around bemoaning the fact that in so many (Novus Ordo) Masses all of the faithful approach to receive Holy Communion, while at the same time there are so few confessions, so that it is certain that there are many sacrilegious communions. So the faithful are not already confused? Why can't he see that reintroduction of the Old Rite more widely would help promote a renewal of our consciousness of these perennial teachings of the Church? The Tridentine Mass texts themselves point in that direction.
But of course that may well be the real problem for such as him. Having dismissed the stated reasons for opposition (which I have not done here, but everyone knows all the arguments), we are left with pop psychologizing about it. For my part, I wonder if the underlying difficulty is that the Old Rite carries with it so many connotations, and for men of his generation, so many recollections, that are unpleasant to them, that they want to have nothing more to do with it, and all that it represents.
The French bishops in particular seem to fear that if the Old Mass is "regularized" again Charles Maurras will arise from his grave and bite them on the leg. I would not discount the possibility that the association of the Old Rite with old-time European right-wing politics is a major factor in the minds of many of the opponents.
Actually, it had more to do with culture, especially in Africa. The bishop that spoke at the Synod commented that it would be challenging for Africans to relate to brocade and organs. There is more at this link.
Rigor mortis? At (Vatican) Synod, bishops give lip service to Latin
That's a silly objection; it's not as if such a move would require anyone to use the old Missal. It would merely allow for its use where desired.
Sources tell me that Pope Benedict has considered the arguments of the SSPX and he is going to annoint Fellay the Pope. After his retirement, Card Ratzinger will agree to stop all writing and he will retire to an undisclosed cell in the Bavarian Alps where he will do Penance for being an architect of the Satan Construction Company. It was Cardinal Ratzinger's clever syncretizing (of truth and error)nouvelle theology which was the great Masonic cement the modernism-poisoned Bishops deeply dipped their evil trowels into into creating that vast Great Facade separating the faithful from all the treasures of Tradition guarded by St. Michael the Archangel in Eternal Rome.
LOL Great picture.
I submit that the confusion doesn't come from the traditional rite, but rather from the liturgical chaos that has ensued since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae. One used to be able to attend Mass anywhere in the world and it was the same Mass. Now the situation is much more confusing, to say the least.
Uhm, but it is the same Mass. How could it be otherwise?
I've never understood this argument.
-Theo
It is, but it doesn't look that way. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember when you could literally walk into any Catholic church anywhere in the world and there were no surprises during the Mass. The name of the bishop was different and that was about it.
Now you can't even walk into a Mass in the same country and guarantee that you're going to know the words, know what to expect next, know what cute little thing the parish liturgical committee has cooked up, etc.
So I honestly don't know what Arinze means with his concern about a multiplicity of rites; in practice, we already have that.
Very well said, Livius.
What's happening on the altar is the same. The question is, rather, is what is happening around the altar accurately reflecting that?
And there, the average ICEL Novus Ordo of the typical American parish today falls flat on its face.
I don't know what "ICEL" means.
Bottom line: just because the Novus Ordo has been mangled in the U.S. at the hands of an ideological band doesn't mean that it's all bad, everywhere, and everytime.
Nor is the desire of a devout minority to restore the previous Rite without controls or constraints be intepreted as "the mind of the Church," particularly when that desire is limited and circumnscribed (sp?)to a few of the faithful of a few countries.
Although the experience of the Novus Ordo here in the U.S. may have been deficient on many occasions for several of us here in the U.S., these by themselves simply do not represent the typical view of Catholics elsewhere in Latin America, Asia or Africa. On making these sweeping judgments we need to understand that the Church is bigger than our parrochial opinions, or even prejudice, here in the U.S. The world, much less the Church, does not revolve around us--pace geocentrists.
Cardinal Arinze understands that. He's right to object to a General Indult. It demonstrates to me that there a search for a middle ground solution is afoot.
-Theo
Nor is the desire of a devout minority to restore the previous Rite without controls or constraints be intepreted as "the mind of the Church,"
Now who is making general, categorical assertions? Nowhere in my previous post did I say the Novus Ordo Missae is "all bad, everywhere, and everytime" or that the classical Roman rite should be restored "without controls or constraints." One doesn't even have to delve into the abuses of the new Mass to find chaos. It is simply possible given all of the options in the missal.
livius captured pretty much what I was trying to say. The Mass used to be truly universal. One could go to Mass anywhere in the world, and with their missal in Latin and their particular vernacular language, they could follow and participate in the Mass. With the Mass being virtually entirely in the vernacular everywhere now, it is no longer universal. I might add that Vatican II said that Latin should remain the primary language for the liturgy.
When one goes to Mass, one is not going to a theoretical Mass. In theory the Mass is the Mass, but reality is not so simple. You cannot dismiss all of the potential different options of the Mass as not contibuting to current liturgical confusion among the laity. Which gets back to my first point - the confusion already exists. Making the classical Roman rite more widely available would not be a significant source of confusion. Arinze's argument is a red herring.
I read what you said, and I'm sorry that I seemed to imply that you made a generalization. The thing is that many times "restorationists" seem to fall into that category. Touché on me falling into what I criticized. I'm properly chastised.
I don't deny the abuses of the Novus Ordo, and the liberal readings of Vatican II. It is clear that Vatican II said that the primary language of the Liturgy was to remain Latin and I love Latin as much as the next guy--at the risk of generalizing--as much as the guy next to the next guy.
But there's something to be said too about inculturation. I enjoy the Mass in English and in Spanish. The problem is not that the Mass is in the vernacular, the problem is that in the inculturation process we at times brings the worst of the culture along with the best.
The alternative is to freeze the Western European Latin ecclessiastical culture into the Liturgy and use that as the standard. This might fly in Western Europe and in white Latin America but let met assure you, it will not work well everywhere else.
Each nation and language group has a right--for lack of a better word--to attend and worship in a Liturgy in their own language, so that their worship be in heart as well as mind. I think that was the rationale behind the vernacular Mass, heck, it was the rationale behind Pentecost.
I think that the universality of the Church is proclaimed better in this diversity than in uniformity. There is space in the Church for a Latin Liturgy as well as for Liturgies in other ancient languages, as well as in the vernacular. The space is vast, because the Church is vast. I am also convinced that much has been learned and earned from the vernacular expressions of the Liturgy worldwide.
Cardinal Arinze--and I'm sure Pope Benedict--has the correct appreciation of the problem and its effects on a multicultural, worldwide Church. The pining of a extreme minority for the older Mass is something that can be addressed, in my lay opinion, through particular pastoral dispensations instead of by recourse to universal legislation.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
-Theo
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.