Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul VI’s “smoke of Satan” remark concerned liturgy [Catholic Caucus]
WDTPRS ^ | 5/15/2008 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Posted on 05/17/2008 7:18:13 AM PDT by markomalley

On the site Petrus there is an interview by Bruno Volpe with His Eminence Virgilio Card. Noè, [pronounced "No-eh"] "former papal MC, the predecessor of Archbp. Piero Marini.

These are very interesting comments.  He speaks of the phrase of Paul VI that the "smoke of Satan" had entered the Church and what Paul VI meant by that phrase. 

My translation and emphases.


Exclusive: the revelation of Card. Noè:" When Paul VI denounced the smoke of Satan in the Church, he was referring to liturgical abuses following Vatican II."

by Bruno Volpe

CITTADEL VATICANO - He speaks with a thread of a voice and at times laboring for breath he it is so difficult he has to stop.  But his mind is lucid and his heart is sound.. The interview with Virgilio Card. Noè, 86, Master of Liturgical Ceremonies during the Pontificates of Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, once the Archpriest of the Basilica of St. Peter and Vicar of the Pope for Vatican City, showed himself to be at the same time both touching and engaging.  The Cardinal, who has very much abandoned public life because of the infirmities of old age, helps us, taking us my the hand, better to know a Pontiff – wrongly forgotten in history’s haste: Giovan Battista Montini.  He reveals for the first time what Paul VI was referring to precisely when in 1972 he denounced the presence of the smoke of Satan in the Church.


Your Eminence, who was Pope Paul VI?

A real gentleman, a saint.  I remember still how he lived the Eucharistic Mystery, with passion and participation.  When I think of him I tear up, but not in the way of a hypocrite. I am truly moved.  I owe him a great deal, he taught me a lot, he lived and paid a great price for the Church.

You had the privilege to be Master of Liturgical Ceremonies precisely because of the assignment from Papa Montini in the time of the post-Conciliar reform.  How do you remember those times?


Splendidly.  Once the Holy Father said to me, personally, and in a very tender way, how the MC ought to carry out his role in that particular historical period.  He came into the sacristy.  I drew near and he said: "The MC must foresee everything and taken everything on himself, he has the task of making the Pope’s road smoother."

Did he add anything else?

He affirmed that the spirit of the MC must not be shaken up by anything, large or small, that may be his own personal problems.  An MC, he stressed, must remain also the master of himself and be the Pope’s shield, so that Holy Mass can be celebrated in a dignified way, for the glory of God and His people.


How did the Holy Father take the liturgical reform desired by Vatican II?

With pleasure.

It is told that Paul VI was quite a sad man, true or legend?

A lie.  He was a good and gentle father, a gentleman and a saint.  At the same time, he was saddened by the fact of having been left alone by the Roman Curia.  But I would prefer not to talk about that.


As a whole, against the historians, You, as one of his closest and trust collaborators, describe Papa Montini as a serene person.

He was.  Do you know why?  Because he also affirmed that whoever serves the Lord cannot ever be sad.  He he served Him especially in the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Paul VI’s denunciation of the presence of the smoke of Satan in the Church is unforgettable.  Still today, that discourse seems to be incredibly relevant.


You from Petrus, have gotten a real scoop here, because I am in a position to reveal, for the first time, what Paul VI desired to denounce with that statement.  Here it is.  Papa Montini, for Satan, meant to include all those priests or bishops and cardinals who didn’t render worship to the Lord by celebrating badly (mal celebrando) Holy Mass because of an errant interpretation of the implementation of the Second Vatican Council.  He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One.  so, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony."

It is thought that Paul VI was the real culprit as the cause of all the ills of post-Conciliar liturgy.  But based on what you have revealed, Eminence, Montini compared the liturgical chaos, even if in a veiled way, actually to something hellish.


He condemned craving to be in the limelight and the delirium of almighty power that they were following the Council at the liturgical level.  Mass is a sacred ceremony, he often repeated, everything must be prepared and studied adequately, respecting the canons, no one is "dominus" [lord] of the Mass.  Sadly, in many after Vatican II not many understood him and Paul VI suffered this, considering the phenomenon to be an attack of the Devil.

Your Eminence, in conclusion, what is true liturgy?

It renders glory to God.  Liturgy must be carried out always and no matter what with decorum: even a sign of the Cross poorly made is synonymous with scorn and sloppiness.  Alas, I repeat, after Vatican II it was believed that everything, or nearly, was permitted.  Now it is necessary to recover, and in a hurry, the sense of the sacred in the ars celebrandi, before the smoke of Satan completely pervades the whole Church.  Thanks be to God, we have Pope Benedict XVI: his Mass and his liturgical style are an example of correctness and dignity.


A few observations. 

First of all, I have good and bad memories of Card. Noè. 

He was the one who tore out the altar of the Chair in the apse of St. Peter’s.  He was one of the main causes of the emasculation of the style of papal ceremonies and the minimalism we experience still in many places. 

At the same time, I remember what a gentleman he was.  I would from time to time encounter him in the Basilica in the mornings.  I said Mass there everyday.  In the corridor between the sacristy and the basilica he would step reverently aside for any priest going to or coming from Mass.  He would say quietly to those going, "Memento" and to those returning, "Prosit".   Old school. 


Also, he made sure the Basilica was clean, which was a real change in those day that persists to today.

Still, while I take what His Eminence says about Paul VI cvm grano salis, I was very interested to read his high praise of Pope Benedict, whom he respects for his liturgical style.

Card. Noè wasn’t a real fan of the Polish Pope’s style, for sure, and there was some tension there.  As a matter of fact Noè was just a little impatient and bossy with him, who wasn’t all that interested in the finer points of liturgy.  I remember a story from a papal MC who was present one day toward the end of Msgr. Noè’s service as MC to John Paul II.  The Pope would descend using an elevator to the floor of the basilica and then, after being greeted according to protocol by the MC and others, would go to vest.  One today, as I said close to the end of Noè’s time, when the MC greeted the Pope, John Paul II responded "Oggi, Monsignore, faccio io papa!.... Today, Monsignor, I think I’ll be the Pope." Msgr. Noè moved along to a new post in the Congregation not long after that.


In any event, the comment Card. Noè made about decorum and the need to celebrate Mass well are spot on and he gets WDTPRS kudos.

As a matter of fact, there is something in his remarks that echos very strongly two of the main points I am trying to drive home on this blog.

First,



Celebrate Mass well, participate properly – affect the whole world. Celebrate poorly – affect the whole world.

What is most fundamental to celebrating Mass well?


 

Simply putting yourself aside and obeying the rules in the book, saying the texts well and properly, is already a huge step in the right direction. 

They are the sine quibus non of a sound ars celebrandi, which Noè mentioned.  This is the phrase that was used during the Synod on the Eucharist in 2005 and then which Benedict explained in Sacramentum caritatis.




TOPICS: Catholic; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS:
Some very interesting observations by the Cardinal and, as always, interesting commentary by Fr. Z.
1 posted on 05/17/2008 7:18:14 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley
>He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. so, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony

Oh. I'd always thought
'smoke of Satan' referred to
large scale, organized

demon worshipping
by higher-ups in the Church.
Instead it just means

left-wing, New Age priests
who let folk singers in mass?
Kind of a let down . . .

2 posted on 05/17/2008 7:24:35 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“Sloppily making the sign of the cross”? Man, that is hardcore straitlace.


3 posted on 05/17/2008 8:02:51 AM PDT by Migraine (Diversity is great...(until it happens to YOU).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I thought this was a story of the the church bashing the tobacco companies.


4 posted on 05/17/2008 8:08:42 AM PDT by DogBarkTree (The correct word isn't "immigrant" when what they are doing is "invading".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DogBarkTree
>I thought this was a story of the the church bashing the tobacco companies

Joe sez: "I've returned
to the Mother Church. No more
Sola Scriptura . . ."

5 posted on 05/17/2008 8:53:28 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It is interesting. VatII was not called to deal with the liturgy and, while there was a (good) liturgical reform already going on, nobody was expecting anything particularly earthshaking from it - perhaps just the official approval of a few of the reforms, such as the restoration of Gregorian chant. Guess we can see how mistaken that was!

I just finished Russell Shaw’s new book on secrecy in the Church, and he points out that Vat II was all about trying to shed the closed, clericalized image that the Church had developed, mostly as a defensive reaction to Protestant and secularist attacks in the late 18th and 19th centuries. I do recall reading the phrase (in the front page report in the New York Times that covered almost the entire front page!) about “opening the windows” and thinking it was a good thing. Shaw points out that when Vat II began, most people welcomed the idea that there would perhaps be a little less pomp and circumstance - combined with secrecy, arrogance, and the feeling of a closed circle - among the bihsops and a little more of the realization that we were all Christians and they were the shepherds. He points out that early on, many attempts were made to deal with this, but that the clerical culture of secrecy (amply demonstrated by the bishops who covered up the gay pederasty in their dioceses) and privilege triumphed.

This was in the main because the lay people they picked to “integrate” the decision making process and provide transparency turned out to be modernists who were actually violently opposed to the Church’s entire project, and once they felt they had a voice, they immediately tried to destroy everything AND get themselves into positions of power in an organization they claimed to hate.

It’s very true, from my observation, that the laypeople who saw this as an opening were the most left-wing and non-Christian of all (this was in the 1960s, of course). I was living near Columbia U at the time, and there was a group there that hung out at something called the Paraclete Bookstore (aka, Parakeet) and sat around grumbling primarily about the Church position on contraception, of all things. They were infuriated when Paul VI came out with Humanae Vitae, and the attack began in serious at that point.

Of course, few of the bishops supported Humanae Vitae either, because there were already a large number of them who were modernists, although not particularly blatant.

But if you lived through the times and think back on them, the change to the liturgy was a symptom; however, because of its crucial position in the Church, it was virtually the nail in the coffin.


6 posted on 05/17/2008 9:08:40 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

Very good observations.

And that is one thing I really like about the current Pontiff is that he is really making an effort to bring about a “reform of the reform” — may he live long enough to see some fruits of his labors.


7 posted on 05/17/2008 9:13:40 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: livius

“(this was in the 1960s, of course). ... grumbling primarily about the Church position on contraception, of all things. They were infuriated when Paul VI came out with Humanae Vitae, and the attack began in serious at that point.”

UMD for me and the grumbling became a shouting match because the first contraceptive pills became available. It was the release from consequences that led to the wholesale degradation of society, and predation of children today.

Freedom became licentiousness which has become an abyss of abortion and loss of any restraint.


8 posted on 05/17/2008 9:17:25 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

9 posted on 05/17/2008 9:18:41 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; All
He would say quietly to those going, "Memento" and to those returning, "Prosit". Old school.

What do these terms mean? I'm curious.

10 posted on 05/17/2008 9:24:49 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

Memento: “Remember”
Prosit: “Helpful”


11 posted on 05/17/2008 9:45:44 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

That’s what happened. I think the other thing was that these people were shocked that the Church actually didn’t realize how brilliant and modern they were and go along with it. Of course, the sad thing is that most bishops and lower clergy were equally opposed to Humanae Vitae.


12 posted on 05/17/2008 10:01:00 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Why is liturgical “dance” (and I put it in quotation marks because 35+ year old women prancing down the front of the church is not dance), going to be completely banned.

It’s still happening around the US and certainly in Cardinal Mahoney’s LA.

It’s a nauseating spectacle especially when they carry bowls of incense.


13 posted on 05/17/2008 12:35:08 PM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

Ay....

“When is liturgical dance”... not Why.


14 posted on 05/17/2008 12:36:41 PM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: livius

Yikes Paraclete, thank goodness it closed.


15 posted on 05/18/2008 5:53:46 AM PDT by AliVeritas (I'm a racist Afro-Leninist, clinging to Darwin, abortion and food stamps. I jest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

You remember it too? FR is wonderful - I don’t think I’ve met anyone else in nearly 40 years who has even heard of the place!!!


16 posted on 05/18/2008 6:25:24 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson