Liturgical Abuses Encouraged by John Paul II says Former Master of Ceremonies
#11
(05-11-2011, 02:34 PM)JayneK Wrote: The liturgical abuses can be adequately explained by positing that John Paul II was a weak pope who did not keep proper control of things.  There is no reason to assume, merely from the existence of the abuses, that he encouraged them.  Personally, I think that there is better support for an argument that he was a weak pope.

That's a variation on Rodari's theory.  At the very least, I'd say he was irresponsible, but he also said and did other things with seeming glee that were like liturgical abuses, whether he was apologizing for the Crusades or hanging out with the very "spiritual" Bono for a photo shoot, among other things.
Reply
#12
Quote: According to our doctrine, there is only one Church, not two. And this one and true Church is the assembly of men, bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith, and by the communion of the same Sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff

I would hazard a guess that 95% of the people in the N.O. do not profess the same Faith as I do.

I look at it more as two different rites.  The Latin Rite, and the Vulgar Rite.  The Vulgar Rite is filled with heresies and needs a major reform, like killing it off.
Reply
#13
(05-11-2011, 02:34 PM)JayneK Wrote: The liturgical abuses can be adequately explained by positing that John Paul II was a weak pope who did not keep proper control of things.  There is no reason to assume, merely from the existence of the abuses, that he encouraged them.  Personally, I think that there is better support for an argument that he was a weak pope.

I would agree if the abuses had only occurred far away from the pope. You can't say the pope wanted the abuse you saw in Random Small Town, USA. But that is not what Piero Marini is referring to when he said that the pope wanted the innovations - what he refers to is the abuses that went on in public Masses that Pope John Paul II himself presided over. It would be credible to say that John Paul II didn't want any of the liturgical abuses, had they happened only a couple of times. But they happened repeatedly and over a period of years. Eventually, even a weak pope would replace the master of ceremonies, if he truly felt that what the MC prescribed was wrong. But John Paul II never did, it was Pope Benedict XVI who replaced Piero Marini.

Any one with a sense of the sacredness of the liturgy would not have let this happen:


Reply
#14
(05-11-2011, 02:05 PM)JayneK Wrote: Anyhow, what we have is an accusation from a witness whom I have never heard good things about against a man who is dead and cannot defend himself.  I would need quite a bit more evidence than this before concluding it was true.

This.

Anyone who could defile the Mass like this Marini did, I'm not going to trust.  For all I know, he just wants to put the JP2 seal of approval on the crap he did so it looks good.  Now, if B16 said JP2 wanted it that way, it would be a different story.  If JP2 wrote he wanted it that way, OK.

But what's Marini going to say?  "I constantly worked against the wishes of JP2 so that the liturgy could be profaned further and appear as if he approved it"?  No.  He's going to say "JP2 loved everything I did!"

Maybe JP2 did, but I'm not going to take Marini's word for it; that's a fact.



Reply
#15
(05-11-2011, 03:59 PM)m.PR Wrote:
(05-11-2011, 02:34 PM)JayneK Wrote: The liturgical abuses can be adequately explained by positing that John Paul II was a weak pope who did not keep proper control of things.  There is no reason to assume, merely from the existence of the abuses, that he encouraged them.  Personally, I think that there is better support for an argument that he was a weak pope.

I would agree if the abuses had only occurred far away from the pope. You can't say the pope wanted the abuse you saw in Random Small Town, USA. But that is not what Piero Marini is referring to when he said that the pope wanted the innovations - what he refers to is the abuses that went on in public Masses that Pope John Paul II himself presided over. It would be credible to say that John Paul II didn't want any of the liturgical abuses, had they happened only a couple of times. But they happened repeatedly and over a period of years. Eventually, even a weak pope would replace the master of ceremonies, if he truly felt that what the MC prescribed was wrong. But John Paul II never did, it was Pope Benedict XVI who replaced Piero Marini.

It could be JP2 never cared enough about the liturgy.  I mean, he let it go to heck all over the place as you point out.  Or it could be he wanted it that way.  All I know is I'm not going to take Marini's word for it.  :shrug:
Reply
#16
Quote: I'm not going to take Marini's word for it
Valid point.
Reply
#17
I believe the master of ceremonies and the Pope both were involved, lets remember The Luminous Mysteries he gave us to disrupt TRADITION. I read in a book a while back that Pope John Paul 2 believed we had to break the traditions of the church down, his papacy proved that on many fronts.
Reply
#18
(05-11-2011, 04:04 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(05-11-2011, 02:05 PM)JayneK Wrote: Anyhow, what we have is an accusation from a witness whom I have never heard good things about against a man who is dead and cannot defend himself.  I would need quite a bit more evidence than this before concluding it was true.

This.

Anyone who could defile the Mass like this Marini did, I'm not going to trust.  For all I know, he just wants to put the JP2 seal of approval on the crap he did so it looks good.  Now, if B16 said JP2 wanted it that way, it would be a different story.  If JP2 wrote he wanted it that way, OK.

But what's Marini going to say?  "I constantly worked against the wishes of JP2 so that the liturgy could be profaned further and appear as if he approved it"?  No.  He's going to say "JP2 loved everything I did!"

Maybe JP2 did, but I'm not going to take Marini's word for it; that's a fact.

This!
Reply
#19
(05-11-2011, 02:34 PM)JayneK Wrote: The liturgical abuses can be adequately explained by positing that John Paul II was a weak pope who did not keep proper control of things.  There is no reason to assume, merely from the existence of the abuses, that he encouraged them.  Personally, I think that there is better support for an argument that he was a weak pope.

It seems it's not quite that. Being weak is one thing, but being purposefully weak is different, and I think it may have been that. Why? Because of two principles adopted at Vatican II: (1) the idea that the Church no longer issues condemnations, and (2) that the purpose of the hierarchy is service (as opposed to top-down governance). If you really believe those things and act upon them, then I think you really would get a John Paul II and a Paul VI. They think the church must be renewed, and so they just let things take their course at the grassroots level--let the sheep do what they want, let the priests and bishops do whatever they want, and moreover, actually facilitate it all, because you're convinced the will of the Holy Ghost is expressed through such things.

I mean, it's total blindness and disorientation, but I think it makes sense considering those two popes' actions and apparent leniency.
Reply
#20
Great post Charlesh.

While I agree that one should not accept the claim at face value, I do think that there was an indisputable passive encouragement of this sort of nonsense.  It becomes pretty tough to rail against lay lectors (lectrixes?) and dance when these are common at papal masses.  'What are you more Catholic than the Pope?'

Archbishop Marini seems to imply that Pope John Paul II actively sought to add novelties to papal masses.  As QuidEsDeus and Charlesh wrote, what seems more likely is that the previous pope was not particularly interested in the liturgy but also had no problem with changes being made to it.

In the end, it doesn't matter all that much.  Spiritual parents either refused to discipline their children (or actively encouraged them to do things wrong.)  As with the collapse of the domestic church, we are reaping a bitter crop now.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)