Posted on 12/13/2005 10:29:45 AM PST by NYer
One wonders why it is that the Church was unable to make the most of the fruits of the Council for a full reawakening of ecclesial faith. Indeed, people appeared who interpreted the Council Documents as a justification for counter-reformist attitudes, that is, the attitudes of those who took the reform to be a relaxation of regulations, which only weakened the Church and took her backwards. Pope Paul VI complained that certain people exploited one or other Council teaching to "impede evangelization" (Evangelii Nuntiandi, n. 80).Strong stuff. And that's just two segements.
I think that the general problem was an erroneous idea of the purpose of the Council. Indeed, speaking of the conciliar reforms, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says: "The [Council] Fathers wanted to update the faith, indeed, to present it with its full impact. Instead, people gradually formed the idea that the reform consisted merely of throwing out the ballast, in other words, of divesting it so that in the end the reform did not appear to radicalize the faith but to dilute
it" (Salt of the Earth, p. 86).
This erroneous attitude gave rise to theological schools which, by down-playing the importance of Tradition and the ecclesial Magisterium in theological direction and research, have advanced confusing opinions, The same situation has more or less plagued sacramental and especially Eucharistic theology. New approaches of certain other theological disciplines, such as those concerning ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, have influenced events. These bewildering theological opinions on the nature of the sacrament have subsequently given rise to not a few problems....
It is therefore regrettable that one encounters in theological circles reductive interpretations of the greatness and deep significance of the sacrament.
Some people, forgetful of its essentially sacrificial aspect, reduce it to a fraternal banquet. Some confuse the separate role of the ministerial priesthood with the common role, reducing Holy Mass to community prayers over which the priest presides; some also no longer believe in the continual presence of the Lord, and behave inappropriately during and after Mass.
Such attitudes have contributed to weakening the Eucharistic faith of a great number of our faithful and to causing this serious crisis concerning the central place of the Eucharist.
A further cause of the negative effects of the liturgical reform is the arbitrary spirit eager for experimentation and adventure that has guided certain sectors of the Church, especially at the height of the reform.
At that time everything seemed acceptable. The dominant trend was to experiment with all aspects of the celebration. Some experiments were carried out without careful research, for reasons that were not really serious or valid, as a reaction to formalism or even to the authority of the Holy See.
A reform based on such considerations cannot be effective or valid. Intense faith and great love for the Church alone must animate every reform, and especially a liturgical reform.
The erroneous interpretation of the meaning of the role and importance of the local Church and her relationship with the universal Church has also contributed to undermining the Eucharistic liturgy.
The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. She is fulfilled in every local Church as well as in the universal Church. She is not a confederation of different Churches, but organically one, since Christ, her Head, gives life to her wherever she may be. This is why, as Lumen Gentium states, "[The Bishops must safeguard] the unity of the faith and the unique divine structure of the universal Church" (n. 23).
In the difficult post-conciliar years, certain theological trends sought to present these two manifestations of the same reality as opposite poles. Some, therefore, justified certain experiments in liturgical matters as "a right" of the local Churches, without even considering the universal nature of the Church and the damage such experiments could cause.
I also believe that another cause of the crisis is neglect of or insufficient insistence on the aspects of the mystery and the mysticism of the sacrament. What happens on the altar really is a mystery for it is invisible to our eyes. Jesus in the Eucharist gives himself ceaselessly to the heavenly Father and to his brothers and sisters, while he becomes God-sacrificed-for-us and our spiritual and heavenly food. The bread and wine are truly changed, through a mystery of faith, into the real Body and Blood of Christ. He continues what he began on Calvary, offering himself as a sacrifice for the expiation of our sins in a continuous process of cosmic liberation, hence creating the "new heavens and a new earth" (II Pt 3:13).
Perhaps this is what earned him the appointment.
What document do you reference with (II Pt 3:13) in the article? I am curious and would like to see if I can find it in its entirity via the Net. Thanks!
Sounds good to me!
That is 2 Peter 3:13
Here's a chunk of that chapter:
9: The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
10: But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.
11: Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
12: waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire!
13: But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
14: Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
Here is a link to Redemptionis Sacramentum .
Benedict reigns!
Did I tell ya, I keep a link to the RSV of the Bible on my toolbar?
A sign from Pope Benedict on the liturgy?The appointment of the new secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, may be a signal of Pope Benedict’s intention on the liturgy. Apparently the archbishop, when he was bishop of a diocese in Sri Lanka, was very favorably inclined toward the Tridentine Mass, and even met with Bernard Fellay, leader of the Society of St. Pius X in 2001.
According to sources, he told Fellay that the crisis of the priesthood is a crisis of the identity of the priest and thus a crisis in the liturgy and that a renewal of the priesthood and of the Church must begin with a renewal of the liturgy.
Fellay claims that after Ranjith was appointed to the Roman Curia in 2002, that Ranjith told him, “I agree 200% with you that there really is a problem in the Church with the liturgy and the priesthood, and both go together. We must work on this, and there is no doubt that the Pope has to set free the true Catholic Mass for everyone I am going now to Rome where I will have my private chapel. I have just taken care to get a Missal of St. Pius V to celebrate Mass as it should be."
This would be a significant statement by the man who is now second in charge at the Congregation for Divine Worship, both for hope for reconciliation with the SSPX and for any possible developments in the reform of the reform of the liturgy.
Most interesting!! Any recent comments from Fellay?
Haven't seen anything current from Fellay.
Meant to ping you to reply #12.
Thank you.
Il Giornale article about the appointment of Abp. Ranjith (12/12/2005):
Alla liturgia un vice-ministro conservatoreda Roma
È la seconda delle nomine significative nei dicasteri della Curia romana dell'era Ratzinger, dopo quella dell'americano Levada come Prefetto della Congregazione per la dottrina della fede. Benedetto XVI ha infatti designato il nuovo Segretario del dicastero vaticano per il culto divino, in sostituzione di monsignor Domenico Sorrentino, trasferito ad Assisi il mese scorso: è l'arcivescovo Albert Malcom Ranijth Patabendige Don, originario dello Sri Lanka, da poco più di un anno nunzio apostolico in Indonesia. Monsignor Ranijth, 58 anni, ausiliare di Colombo nel 1991, dal 1995 vescovo della neodiocesi di Ratnapura, nell'ottobre 2001 era stato nominato Segretario aggiunto di Propaganda Fide, il dicastero missionario guidato dal cardinale Crescenzio Sepe.
Nell'aprile 2004, dopo due anni e mezzo di permanenza a Roma, Ranijth era ritornato in Oriente, come nunzio apostolico in Indonesia e Timor Est. All'origine di questo trasferimento ci sarebbero state delle divergenze d'opinione con il suo diretto superiore in merito agli statuti delle Pontificie opere missionarie. La figura di Ranijth, esperto di Sacra Scrittura, era ben nota a Joseph Ratzinger: il nuovo Segretario del «ministero» vaticano per la liturgia è stato infatti uno dei vescovi asiatici in prima linea nell'affermare l'unicità salvifica di Gesù nel variegato e difficile panorama religioso di quei Paesi, nei quali anche i teologi cattolici a volte sembrano indulgere a concezioni sincretistiche. Il suo rientro nella Curia romana è particolarmente significativo anche per le future prospettive della riforma liturgica e per il possibile rientro dei lefebvriani nella piena comunione con Roma.
Monsignor Ranijth è infatti un prelato stimato anche dai tradizionalisti e dai seguaci di Lefebvre, e nell'aprile 2004 ha firmato sull'«Osservatore Romano» uno dei primi autorevoli commenti all'istruzione «Redemptionis Sacramentum», il documento contro gli abusi liturgici. In quel testo il nuovo Segretario della Congregazione del culto, ammetteva che in alcuni casi la riforma conciliare non ha portato i frutti sperati, denunciando un'«interpretazione riduttiva» del sacramento eucaristico e le molte irregolarità nella sua celebrazione.
My Italian is not what it used to be. I did see a translation of that article somewhere, but I don't have time right now to look for it. Perhaps another FReeper will post it or translate the Italian.
Bear in mind that I say this as an almost-daily attendee at the Tridentine Mass, and excuse me for asking this in the midst of the apparent jubilation at this appointment:
FIRST, until he was removed and replaced, had anyone ever heard of the previous #2 man at CDW? (In fact, I cannot even think of his name now to type it in the question!).
I mean, did he WRITE anything? DECIDE anything? ESPOUSE anything that anyone can remember?????
That's just to put the job itself in perspective.
SECONDLY, did anyone notice how long this new guy was Bishop of his own diocese? Less than six years. And from there he was absorbed into the diplomatic corps, to Rome and nunciatures somewhat lower on the plum-scale than, say, London, Washington, Paris and Berlin.
What does it mean in Sri Lanka when a bishop "moves on" after less than six years, NOT to an Archdiocese or a prominent desk in Rome but to East Timor? I know what it means in the USA, no matter what the people left behind (often rejoicing) in the diocese may be told!
All of which is to say that, given some of the English-speaking names that were circulating as candidates for this job, I wonder if, since it was the #2 spot after all, the choice was something like the Democratic primary here last Fall: Kerry, Edwards, Sharpton, hmmmm, choices, choices, decisions, decisions . . .
Just wondering.
I mean, did he WRITE anything? DECIDE anything? ESPOUSE anything that anyone can remember?????
He replaces Domenico Sorrentino who has just been assigned to be Bishop of Assisi.
Isn't he (the new Bishop of Assisi) now going to be the one in charge of the Franciscans that our Holy Father recently reprimanded?
Yes, but he'll be under Cardinal Ruini.
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.