The Spirit of the Liturgy

Contact Excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger's The Sprit of the Liturgy Rites are not rigidly fenced off from each other. There is exchange and cross-fertilization between them. The clearest example is in the case of the two great focal points of ritual development: Byzantium and Rome. In their present form, most of the Eastern rites are very strongly marked by Byzantine influences. For its part, Rome has increasingly united the different rites of the West in the universal Roman rite. While Byzantium gave a large part of the Slavic world its special form of divine worship, Rome left its liturgical imprint on the Germanic and Latin peoples and on a part of the Slavs.

In the first millennium there was still liturgical exchange between East and West. Then, of course, the rites hardened into their definitive forms, which allowed hardly any cross-fertilization. What is important is that the great forms of rite embrace many cultures. They not only incorporate the diachronic aspect, but also create communion among different cultures and languages. They elude control by any individual, local community, or regional Church. Unspontaneity is of their essence. In these rites I discover that something is approaching me here that I did not produce myself, that I am entering into something greater than myself, which ultimately derives from divine revelation. That is why the Christian East calls the liturgy the "Divine Liturgy", expressing thereby the liturgy's independence from human control.

The West, by contrast, has felt ever more strongly the historical element, which is why Jungmann tried to sum up the Western view in the phrase "the liturgy that has come to be". He wanted to show that this coming-to-be still goes on — as an organic growth, not as a specially contrived production. The liturgy can be compared, therefore, not to a piece of technical equipment, something manufactured, but to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development.

In the West there was, of course, another factor. With his Petrine authority, the pope more and more clearly took over responsibility for liturgical legislation, thus providing a juridical authority for the continuing formation of the liturgy. The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and limits of this authority, which, of course, as such had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.

In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. Here again, as with the questions of icons and sacred music, we come up against the special path trod by the West as opposed to the East. And here again is it true that this special path, which finds space for freedom and historical development, must not be condemned wholesale. However, it would lead to the breaking up of the foundations of Christian identity if the fundamental intuitions of the East, which are the fundamental intuitions of the early Church, were abandoned. The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. Still less is any kind of general "freedom" of manufacture, degenerating into spontaneous improvisation, compatible with the essence of faith and liturgy. The greatness of the liturgy depends — we shall have to repeat this frequently — on its unspontaneity (Unbeliebigkeit).

Let us ask the question again: "What does 'rite' mean in the context of Christian liturgy?" The answer is: "It is the expression, that has become form, of ecclesiality and of the Church's identity as a historically transcendent communion of liturgical prayer and action." Rite makes concrete the liturgy's bond with that living subject which is the Church, who for her part is characterized by adherence to the form of faith that has developed in the apostolic Tradition. This bond with the subject that is the Church allows for different patterns of liturgy and includes living development, but it equally excludes spontaneous improvisation. This applies to the individual and the community, to the hierarchy and the laity. Because of the historical character of God's action, the "Divine Liturgy" (as they call it in the East) has been fashioned, in a way similar to Scripture, by human beings and their capacities. But it contains an essential exposition of the biblical legacy that goes beyond the limits of the individual rites, and thus it shares in the authority of the Church's faith in its fundamental form. The authority of the liturgy can certainly be compared to that of the great confessions of faith of the early Church. Like these, it developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000), pp. 164-167).

Luther's view was essentially antiquarian. He repudiated the developments of a thousand years and denied infallibility to councils, but in large he still accepted Augustine as his master, at least in the same way that Aristotle accepted Plato as his. He accepted as authetic only the tradition that was consistent with the Scripture as he interpretated it. But of course his interpretation was what was logically consistent with HIS doctrine of grace. He really believe that only HE understood Paul.

<> I wasn't calling you a slave of Satan to amuse you. I was calling you a slave of Satan because you are a slave of Satan. You ask for arguements, but they do not sway you. Your assertions have been defeated repeatedly, you have been shown to have been a liar on a number of occasions, you have been shown to have manufactured quotes, you have been repeatedly challenged to produce evidence that 40 or more Popes have been heretics, you have been corrected scores of times and nothing changes. You are here day after day after day after day repeating the same old lies, the same distortions, the same arrogant attacks as though you had any authority.

You broke Unity with the Catholic Church and have entered into the camp of Satan. You and your ilk are slaves of Satan. It is that clear-cut. It is that simple. <>

No, it is your premises which are wrong. You wrongly assume the Pope is superior to Tradition itself, whereas he is only its protector. His office exists to guard the deposit of faith, not to undermine it. When he assaults that tradition, handed down from apostolic times, he supercedes his own authority and must be disobeyed. This is because the faith itself comes before the papacy, not the other way around.

I think it's instructive how you deal with this. You do not use actual arguments, you use verbal abuse. This has been your tactic from the beginning. When this hasn't worked, you use sarcasm or ridicule. You will post the arguments of others on occasion. What you don't do is trust your own reasoning. I don't wonder at this since your reasoning is bankrupt. There are no arguments to use against what is so compellingly self-evident. So you hurl insults.

If you had been paying attention, you would know I never said 40 popes were FORMALLY heretical, but stated they had been materially so. I posted comments making this clear several times. I stated that Robert Sungenis on CAI, in one of his posts criticizing this Pope for the Assisi prayer meetings, pointed out that Vatican I had documented more than 40 popes who had been theologically mistaken about Catholic doctrines in serious ways. I have repeatedly given this source and you either haven't read it or choose to ignore it.

<> Wrong. I provided a link that puts the lie to that false charge. I have never said the Pope is superior to tradition. The rest of that paraghraph is pure protestantism amasquerading as traditiuonalism. Pathetic

I couldn't care less about how you charcaterise my approach. You are an SOS COWboy (Slave of Satan, Church of Winona boy) and I think that fetching appelation for you.

You STILL haven't provided any evidence for material heresy of the Popes. You STILL cite it...Pathetic SOS COWboy<>

Just to play devil's advocate (because in matters of tradition, I'm more on your side than not), what is it about the break in tradition that bothers you? The banality (this annoys me), the "lowering of the bar" of excellence? Losing something that should be treasured and isn't? What?

I ask because it seems that the people who push change in liturgy also like to change their furniture every three years and constantly are buying every new gadget on the market. It's a personality trait.

You're getting funnier and funnier. You have stated over and over that Tradition is whatever the Pope says it is, which is ridiculous. He is the servant of what he has received, not its master. There were other councils and other popes. If this Pope is not aligned with them, he is obviously out of step with Tradition, no ifs ands or buts.

It's not that complicated. In fact, it's very clear. This Pope says capital punishment is wrong, past popes have said it's an important duty of the state. This Pope apologizes to Islam, past popes have warned Islam is an aggressive religion that wins its converts by the sword. This Pope enters a synagogue to pray with Jews for the coming of their messiah, past popes have insisted on the conversion of the Jews to Christ. This Pope prays with animists and voodoo priests and witchdoctors, past popes have condemned such idolatrous practices. This Pope authorizes an acceptance of the Lutheran position on Justification, past popes have rejected the Lutheran argument. This Pope disregards time-tested canonization procedures by loading the evidence in favor of his friends, past popes have supported the need for the process to be above reproach and objective. This Pope awards the red hat to bishops who are openly apostate, past popes have disciplined bishops for signs of even minor doctrinal dissent.

So who is wrong here--someone like you who insist this Pope with his thousand innovations does not contradict Tradition, or myself who presents facts to the contrary?

In the Tradition of the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture has NEVER been venerated the way we venerate Christ's Body, which has been ADORED. We do not worship Scripture, but we worship Christ's Presence in the Holy Eucharist.

Okay, no arguments from me. Frankly, I find myself gravitating toward older priests these days who say the first Eucharstic Prayer and really say Mass completely, not leaving things out. For one thing, the language is stronger. For another, you don't come away feeling like Mass wasn't finished. It drives me crazy that the whole part right after Offertory is now pretty much left out, that the Confiteor AND the Kyrie are not said EVERY Sunday Mass. That's what make it complete for me.

So, here I think there is some common ground.

That competent authority is the whole line of councils and popes that have preceded this Pope. Is kissing the Koran traditional? Of course not. We know it is not because past popes would have been horrified by such an act which is tantamount to early Christians kissing the feet of some imperial statue. The early Christian martyrs went to their deaths precisely so that they might not show deference to false gods. Can any one argue this is not the traditional Catholic practice, rather than what the Pope does? Would anyone also contend that a fabricated Mass is traditional? Is it something which has evolved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and been handed-down through the ages as was the Old Mass? Of course it is not. It is the very antithesis of something traditional--and is therefore rightly suspect, having been engineered by those who had axes to grind. Well, they have ground them for all they were worth for more than thirty years and now look at the consequences: a generalized collapse of the faith even within the highest echelons of the Church itself, with corruption that is mind-boggling involving altar boys and six-year-olds. This should have clued us in long ago that something has gone terribly wrong at the top.

Would anyone also contend that a fabricated Mass is traditional? Is it something which has evolved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and been handed-down through the ages as was the Old Mass? Of course it is not. It is the very antithesis of something traditional--and is therefore rightly suspect, having been engineered by those who had axes to grind.

Axes to grind? You give them too much credit. I still contend that the liturgy changed so drastically when ephemeral aesthetics and short attention spans came into vogue.

Some people want change just for the sake of change and because they don't seem to have anything better to do.

<> Happy Trails SOS COWboys. I have had some fun but you boys are just going endlessly in circles. You may attract a few followers, although I doubt it. Far more have quit your schismatic gang than have joined it over the past several years. Evidence of that is that the few renegades remaining, Ferrara, Woods et all are featured in more and more of the tired, old, schismatic websites.

I am not the only one to notice that your "support," weak as it is, comes from the occasional Calvinist or Orthodox. Happy Trails, boys....<>

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.