Posted on 04/03/2004 9:38:01 AM PST by ultima ratio
Worse Than Deja Vu All Over Again:
Vatican caves on meaningful reform of disastrous New Mass
Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.
Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.
--Pope John Paul, while still Bishop of Krakow, as quoted in Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla. P. 220
When last we left the saga of the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope John Paul II promised Catholics worldwide that a new set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses would be drawn up and issued by the Holy See as a follow up to his Ecclesia de Eucharistica encyclical letter. This caused many well-meaning Catholics in the Novus Ordo community to jump up and down for joy, believing that the long awaited crackdown from Rome was forthcoming. Some commentators said at the time that the Popes encyclical letter was just the word we needed to have during the Easter season. Others of us said that the Holy Fathers encyclical letter made many of the same points as his 1980 Holy Thursday letter to priests, Dominicae Cenae, which promised a set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses.
Well, if a news report from Catholic World Newss website is to be believed, the forthcoming document from Rome about the liturgy is worse than deja vu all over again. The 1980 instruction, Inaestimabile Donum, issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, did list the major abuses in the new Mass and called for them to be corrected. This gave much hope to those of us who did not then have the grace of tradition. Indeed, I waved copies of Inaestimabile Donum in the faces of offending priests for a year or two before I realized that Rome wasnt going to enforce anything, including the reaffirmation of the ban on girl altar boys. Many of us did not realize at the time that the abuses were simply manifestations of the false presuppositions of a synthetic liturgy that sought to empty the Mass of its authentic tradition while claiming positivistically that tradition had been maintained as it was updated. There was no correcting the Novus Ordo then. There is no correcting it now. There will never be any correction of abuses in the Novus Ordo.
According to the CWN.com news story, the new document from Rome dealing with the liturgy will not mandate any disciplinary measures against liturgical abuses. It will merely call for an adherence to existing norms by proper training in the liturgy. If true, this is actually worse than Inaestimabile Donum. All of the thunder made by Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in the immediate aftermath of the Popes encyclical last year was merely rhetoric, which yielded in the final instance to the desires of the ideological descendants of the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini to keep exploding the liturgical time bombs that Michael Davies has noted with great precision were placed into the Novus Ordo as it was being created synthetically by the Consilium. Although this was entirely predictable, the fact that the new document will not represent the salvation of the Novus Ordo, which admits of so many legitimate adaptations and exceptions as to make any discussion of a liturgical rite an absolute oxymoron, should give traditionally minded priests who remain in the diocesan structure a wake up call. Rin Tin Tin and the Cavalry are not coming from Fort Apache.
All discussion of a universal indult for priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass evidently has disappeared from the final text of the soon to be released liturgical document. Of course, Quo Primum is the only universal and perpetually binding indult any priest has ever needed to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. The powers that be in Rome, however, do not want to admit that on behalf of the Holy Father, who must give his approval to the new document. Thus, those traditionally minded priests who thought that they were going to get a golden parachute from the Holy See so as to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in the daylight rather than in the underground have been deceived. As good sons of the Church, many of these priests wanted to wait and see, although the outcome was predictable. Now that the outcome is clear, it is time for these priests to respond to this wake up call. They will receive no help from this pope.
Indeed, Pope John Paul II is wedded to the liturgical revolution, and has been since the Second Vatican Council. He is not going to be leading the cavalry over the hill. The late Father Vincent Miceli gave me a very important insight into the mind of the Holy Father back in January of 1983. As a self-deceived Catholic conservative who held out high hopes for the pontificate of the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla when he was elevated to the Throne of Saint Peter on October 16, 1978, I was flabbergasted that the Pope had appointed the then Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin, to succeed the late John Cardinal Cody as Archbishop of Chicago. Bernardin? Chicago? That was the stuff of Father Andrew Greeley. I had written a priest-friend in Canada in 1979 at around the time Greeley began to push Bernardin for Chicago, that this will never happen in the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Father Miceli took a few bites out of his meal at a diner in Massapequa Park, Long Island, New York, looked at me and said, The Popes a liberal. Bernardin is a friend of his from the Second Vatican Council. They are fellow progressives. Dont kid yourself. He continued eating his meal in perfect peace. Well, although I filed Father Micelis wise counsel away, I didnt want to believe it at the time. He was, of course, quite right.
To wit, I received a letter from a reader of Christ or Chaos (which is going to become an online publication by the end of February) that contained a nugget from a 1980 book, Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla, written by a fellow named Malinski and published in France:
"In 1965when Pope John Paul II was still the Bishop of Krakow, he discussed the phenomenon referred to as inculturation with a friend, saying: 'Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.'" (page 220)
The reader, Mr. A. E. Newman, had a pithy comment or two of his own in his letter to me: Tell me, what hope is there from a man who thinks like thiswhat hope for a stable liturgy, for upholding of age long traditions? What hope from a man who flies in the face of his predecessors? Now that his reign is drawing to a close I can answer that [there is] no hope! My own view is that in the eyes of history the last three popes will bear a heavy responsibility for our present shambles and [the loss] among the faithful of millions. Just at the moment when Islam is strong. We can credit him for one thing: he followed through! God will deal with him, but we [will deal] with the deformation of our Faith.
Although the fodder for an entire series of articles, the comments of the then Archbishop of Krakow are quite instructive. They should serve as a sobering reminder to good priests and laity who believed that the Novus Ordo can be reformed that the problem rests in the new Mass itself. Not much time needs to be wasted on this as the proverbial handwriting is really on the wall. Those traditionally minded priests who have remained in the Novus Ordo structure should stop believing that their words or even their presence can counteract entirely the harm to the Faith contained within the new Mass, admitting that there are priests within the diocesan structure who are zealous for the salvation of souls and who spend themselves tirelessly for the flock entrusted to their pastoral care. They should, as painful as it may be for them to consider, simply follow the courageous examples of Father Stephen P. Zigrang and Father Lawrence Smith. They should assert their rights under Quo Primum no matter what unjust ecclesiastical consequences might befall them. Many of their sheep will follow them, and those sheep will provide for their temporal needs, as is happening at Our Lady Help of Christians Chapel in Garden Grove, California, where hundreds upon hundreds of fed-up Catholics have found their way to the Catholic underground simply by word of mouth. It is simply time to force the Novus Ordo structure, built on quicksand, to collapse of its own intellectual dishonesty and liturgical incompleteness. It is time for good priests to say goodbye to a synthetic concoction and to bravely embrace the glory of Tradition.
Each priest must make his own decision in this regard. It is, though, a grave disservice to the faithful to try to pretend that the Novus Ordo itself is not the problem and/or that the problems will get better over the course of time. They will not. The Novus Ordo remains the prisoner of its own false presuppositions and of the devolution of liturgical decision making to local level, as was envisioned in Paragraph 22 of Sacrosanctum Concilium itself on December 1, 1963.
What applies to priests applies as well to the long-suffering laity who have waited for such a long time to see the abuses that have their origin in the Novus Ordo itself come to an end. So many good people, who dearly love God and want to save their souls, have fought valiant but ever failing efforts in most instances to keep the liturgical time bombs from exploding in their own local parishes and dioceses. Some of these people have tried to equip themselves with the latest information from Rome about what is licit and illicit in the context of Holy Mass. What these good people need to realize, though, is that the Novus Ordo is impermanent and unstable of its very nature. The new Mass is entirely predicated upon the idiosyncratic predilections of a bishop or a priest or diocesan and/or parish liturgical committees.
The Mass of Tradition has always been beyond even the realm of a bishop to change for reasons of inculturation or the genius of the peoples. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition gives God the fitting and solemn worship that is His due, communicates clearly and unequivocally the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice for human sins, and provides a permanence and stability that are reflective of the nature of God Himself and of mans need for Him and His unchanging truths. It is time for good lay people themselves to say goodbye to the angst and confusion and anger generated by all of the problems associated with the Novus Ordo Missae.
Enough said.
Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH By Wm.G.Most. (c)Copyright, 1994, by Wm.G.Most ... Doctrinal Authority of Vatican II ... It is often claimed that Vatican II meant only to be pastoral - and so we could ignore its teachings as we wish. Is this true? To get a start, we need to see that there are four levels of teaching in the Church. 1. Four levels of teaching: a)Solemn definition.LG 25: No special formula of words is required in order to define. Wording should be something solemn, and should make clear that the teaching is definitive. Councils in the past often used the form:'Si quis dixerit...anathema sit." That is:" "If someone shall say....let him be anathema." But sometimes they used the formula for disciplinary matters, so that form alone does not prove. Further, they also could define in the capitula, the chapters. Thus Pius XII, in Divino afflante Spiritu (EB 538) spoke of such a passage of Vatican I (DS 3006 -- saying God is the author of Scripture) as a solemn definition. The Pope can define even without the Bishops. Of his definitions LG 25 said: "His definitions of themselves, and not from consent of the Church, are rightly called unchangeable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised him in blessed Peter. So they need no approval from others, nor is there room for an appeal to any other judgment." So collegiality even in defining is not mandatory. Yet most definitions of the Popes have been taken in collegiality, that is, with consultation of the Bishops. Even the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were such, for the Popes did poll the Bishops by mail. b)Second level: LG 25:"Although the individual bishops do not have the prerogative of infallibility, they can yet teach Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is true even when they are scattered around the world, provided that, while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves, and with the successor of Peter, they concur in one teaching as the one which must be definitively held." This means: (1) The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when it gives things as definitively part of the faith, (2)If this can be done when scattered,all the more can it be done when assembled in Council. Thus Trent (DS 1520) after "strictly prohibiting anyone from hereafter believing or preaching or teaching differently than what is established and explained in the present decree, " went on to give infallible teaching even in the capitula, outside the canons. To know whether the Church intends to teach infallibly on this second level, we notice both the language -- no set form required - and the intention, which may be seen at times from the nature of the case, at times from the repetition of the doctrine on this second level. c)Third Level: Pius XII,in Humani generis: "Nor must it be thought that the things contained in Encyclical Letters do not of themselves require assent on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, about which it is also true to say, 'He who hears you, hears me.' [Lk 10.16]... If the Supreme Pontiffs, in their acta expressly pass judgment on a matter debated until then, it is obvious to all that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be considered any longer a question open for discussion among theologians." We notice: (1) These things are protected by the promise of Christ in Lk 10.16, and so are infallible, for His promise cannot fail. Though that promise was first given to the 72, it is certain that the Apostles were in the group,and as the trajectory advanced, it became clear that the full teaching authority was only for them - the mission given to the 72 was preliminary,and the full meaning was made clear later when the Apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose. This was part of the broader picture: Jesus wanted only a gradual self-revelation. Had He started by saying: "Before Abraham was,I am", He would have been stoned on the spot. (2)Not everything in Encyclicals, and similar documents, is on this level - this is true only when the Popes expressly pass judgment on a previously debated matter, (3) since the Church scattered throughout the world can make a teaching infallible without defining - as we saw on level 2 - then of course the Pope alone, who can speak for and reflect the faith of the whole Church, can do the same even in an Encyclical, under the conditions enumerated by Pius XII. Really, on any level, all that is required to make a thing infallible is that it be given definitively. When a Pope takes a stand on something debated in theology and publishes it in his Acta,that suffices. The fact that as Pius XII said it is removed from debate alone shows it is meant as definitive. In this connection, we note that LG 12 says: "The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief." This means: If the whole Church, both people and authorities, have ever believed (accepted as revealed) an item, then that cannot be in error, is infallible. Of course this applies to the more basic items, not to very technical matters of theological debate. But we note this too: If this condition has once been fulfilled in the past, then if people in a later age come to doubt or deny it -- that does not make noninfallible what was once established as infallible. Many things come under this ,e.g., the existence of angels. This does not mean, however,that the Pope is to be only the echo of the faithful. d)Level 4: LG 25:"Religious submission of mind and of will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely, that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either from the nature of the documents, or from the repeated presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of speaking." We note all the qualifications in the underlined part The key is the intention of the Pope. He may be repeating existing definitive teaching from Ordinary Magisterium level - then it is infallible, as on level 2. He may be giving a decision on a previously debated point - as on level 3, then it falls under the promise of Christ in Lk 10.16, and so is also infallible. Or it may be a still lesser intention - then we have a case like that envisioned in Canon 752 of the New Code of Canon Law: "Not indeed an assent of faith, but yet a religious submission of mind and will must be given to the teaching which either the Supreme Pontiff, or the College of Bishops [of course, with the Pope] pronounce on faith or on morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act." If they do not mean to make it definitive, then it does not come under the virtue of faith, or the promise of Christ,"He who hears you hears me". Rather,it is a matter of what the Canon and LG 25 call "religious submission of mind and of will." What does this require? Definitely, it forbids public contradiction of the teaching. But it also requires something in the mind, as the wording indicates. This cannot be the absolute assent which faith calls for - for since this teaching is, by definition, not definitive, we gather that it is not absolutely finally certain. How can anyone give any mental assent when there is not absolute certitude? In normal human affairs, we do it all the time. Suppose we are at table,and someone asks if a dish of food came from a can, and if so, was it sent to a lab to check for Botulism. It is true, routine opening of a can would not detect that deadly poison. Yet it is too much to check every can, and the chances are very remote, so much so that normal people do not bother about it - yet their belief takes into account a real but tiny possibility of a mistake. Similarly with a doctrine on this fourth level. And further,the chances of error on this level are much smaller than they are with a can of food. Similarly,in a criminal trial, the judge will tell the jury they must find the evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He does not demand that every tiny doubt be ruled out, even though it may mean life in prison or death. If one should make a mistake by following the fourth level of Church teaching, when he comes before the Divine Judge, the Judge will not blame him, rather He will praise him. But if a person errs by breaking with the Church on the plea that he knew better - that will not be easily accepted. 2.On what Level does Vatican II Teaching Come?
a)We notice the distinctions of the kinds of documents - constitutions, decrees, declarations. Even the least of these would qualify for level four. |
However, as noted above, there can be infallible teaching even without this formula - no special wording is required, only that there be an intention to define, made clear in any way. |
"The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously." And he added: "But from the renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in its entirety, transmitted with the precision and concepts which are especially the glory of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, the Christian, Catholic and Apostolic spirit of all hopes for a further step in the doctrinal penetration, in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine." [emphasis added] -- We notice two things: (1) He wants perfect fidelity to past teaching, (2)He wants further doctrinal penetration. (3) He added:"The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another." Hence the Decree on Ecumenism 6 says:"If...there have been deficiencies in the way that Church teaching has been formulated -- to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself - these can and should be set right at the opportune moment." So the language of presentation may need improvement - but the substance is not to be changed. Hence Paul VI, in Mysterium fidei, Sept 3,1965, 23-24: "The norm...of speaking which the Church...under the protection of the Holy Spirit has established and confirmed by the authority of the Councils...is to be religiously preserved, and let no one at his own good pleasure or under the pretext of new science presume to change it.... For by these formulae...concepts are expressed which are not tied to one specific form of human civilization, nor definite period of scientific progress, nor one school of theological thought, but they present what the human mind...grasps of realities and expresses in suitable and accurate terminology.... For this reason these formulae are adapted to men of all times and all places" (AAS 57.758). |
As to other things which the Holy Synod proposes as the doctrine of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, all and individual faithful persons must accept and embrace them according to the mind of the Holy Synod itself, which becomes known either from the subject matter or from the manner of speaking,according to the norms of theological interpretation." (7)Paul VI,opening speech to Third Session (AAS 56,808- 09), referring to coming work on the Constitution on the Church: "In this way the doctrine which the Ecumenical Council Vatican I had intended will be completed.... It is proper for this solemn Synod to settle certain laborious theological controversies about the shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully flow from the episcopate, and to pronounce a statement on them that is certain. We must declare what is the true notion of the hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt [emphasis added]." From the underlined words, it seems there was an intention to be definitive, and so, infallible, even without the solemn form of a definition. |
but it still provided us teaching with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which must be accepted with docility...." (2)Paul VI,Allocution to Consistory of Cardinals,May 24,1976 (Osservatore Romano,English,June 3,l976), complained: "It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding." |
But we can find things on levels 2, 3, or 4. An item that is quite new, never taught before, such as some things in the Declaration on Religious Liberty, probably are on level 4. But the Constitutions on the Church and on Divine Revelation seem to have the intention to settle debated points -- cf.the text of Paul VI (b.6 above) in his speech to the opening of Third Session, saying the Constitution on the Church intended to complete the work of Vatican I on that topic,and to settle certain debated points. [ Third level of infallibility. ] |
This thread that you started rang a bell with me and I realized that the quote Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense had once again been taken right out of context in order to further the writer's agenda. This quote without context has been used in other essays previously posted on FR by those who wish to kick and rail and cause dissention and discord among the faithful.
This is a fuller and more contextualized quote of the quote Mr. Droelsky uses somewhat dishonestly in order to create another essay of discontent. It is taken from an Una Voca website in case you want to verify it.
In 1965, when still Bishop of Cracow, John Paul II showed he was bewildered about which direction the liturgical reform would take, particularly in Africa. "Where will it end?" he asked, "Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colours, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is enormous ... " (Malinskl, Mon Ami, Karl Wojtyla, Paris, 1980, p.220.)
My reading of this fuller quote evokes the understanding that JPII, while still bishop, realized that by reforming the Latin Rite Mass in order to include some elements of local custom, the reform was not specific enough to stop the coming abuses done in the name of inculturation. He saw even in 1965, the abuses that would be forthcoming.
Even though you have lost the ability to see it, Fr. Most has given us a calm and reasoned view of the extent to which Vatican II is binding on the faithful while acknowledging the disclaimers you point out with such excitement.
By the way, he was an implacable foe of modernists in the church, and your calling him "liberal" and a "modernist" is quite amusing.
There is no doubt modernism is the enemy of the Church and must be contended with. Fr. Most was faithful and fought the good fight until he died. He made much progress and helped many to keep the faith. You didn't stay and fight. You jumped ship. That didn't help at all.
Amen, Nika.
When I first started posting on FR was when I first heard of the SSPX and everything they espouse and uphold. I was very sympathetic to their stance until I got to read more and more posts which eventually came to remind me of Protestant objections amounting to "Non serviam est!" in both cases.
The further along I came on FR the more I realized that the SSPX mentality is a fortress mentality - an "us against them" way of living. It's terribly tragic that the radical traditional souls within the Church, particularly the males, do not see the the seeds of faith they could be planting within the regular parish setting or how, if they attended a Tridentine rite, those parishes would eventually be forced to expand - never mind the vocation spike they would have! Given that scenerio, the traditional element within the Church would be strengthened immeasureably and would overcome the progressive element much more quickly than is happening now. There is indeed strength in numbers.
The break away SSPX has fallen prey to disobedience. One couldn't imagine a happier scenerio for the devil.
What new dogmas were presented which were binding?
Lumen Gentium §21 contains a dogmatic definition of the sacramentality of the episcopate:
And the Sacred Council teaches that by episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church's liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry.
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.