Cardinal Sarah announces Pope Francis asks for "reform of the reform"
#21
(07-06-2016, 04:03 PM)BC Wrote: I understand the largely good-willed thinking from alot of "conservatives" but it is really beyond frustrating to see these ongoing attempts to save the Novus Ordo, here and there.

Anything but go back to the Traditional Latin Mass, apparently.

One simple reason ... few, if any priest today understand the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. That is so intimately tied to the Liturgy ... But several generations failed to communicate that to their progeny, and gave, instead, a Social Worker notion to the priest.

Some, realizing that the priest has to be more than just a celibate Social Worker, have regained a bit of that notion of the sacrificial, but being so far removed from the past when this was more-or-less understood, they are just like the Greeks. The Greeks in the height of their civilization understood that there was something flawed in man (look at Oedipus, Antigone, etc.), yet they couldn't put their finger on exactly what it was, because they'd lost the notion of Original Sin. Adam passed it to his progeny, but somewhere along the line, someone didn't, and all that was left was a vague sense of disorder.

Today most Churchmen have no experience of Tradition. Even if they had the Roman Rite before 1962, few were truly formed by the Liturgy.

The Novus Ordo came around and it indirectly reinvented the priesthood. Now, like a blind man, realizing he's lost, he flails around looking for a solution, grasping onto anything he can.

It is hard to cast away all of that formation in a false notion, and it is not as if the traditional liturgy is a panacea, either. It's an odd Catch-22. The correct notion of the priest demands the traditional liturgy to nourish it, but the traditional liturgy demands the correct notion of the priest to prevent mere aestheticism and formalism.

There's really only one solution: Saintly Priests, who by some miracle, have learned and can communicate to those priests who have been lost in the desert of humanism, the true notion of the priesthood.

Practically though, that's going to require moral miracles, not some systematic human plan.
Reply
#22
All Cardinal Sarah can do is suggest ad orientem worship as an option for the modern Roman Liturgy. It seems to me that it'll be an impossible uphill battle to try to get this to be the norm within the Church. EVERY Pope,almost all the episcopate, most Latin rite priests and millions of the faithful on every continent for over half a century have made vernacular versus populum liturgy the norm, not the exception.  This will be almost impossible to change.

Any change will be grassroots,at the individual parish level. The average Catholic couldn't care less how the Mass is offered.  They are simply used to the modern form with all its options. The way I see it if you have a chapel where it's offered ad orientem than count your blessings, but for most of us it's not likely to ever be an option that's used.

In conclusion I'll say that I believe wholeheartedly that the return to the old Mass is not ever going to happen.  It's a pipe dream.  The best case scenario is some sort of hybrid Mass that comes out of centuries of cross fertilization between the two.  I don't see it as reasonable or even realistic for the old to simply return full swing while the new is abolished. Like it or not the new rite and all that goes with it are part of Catholicism now.

I have pondered this stuff endlessly the last few years and can't see it any other way.  I cannot subscribe to what I perceive as the  wishful thinking of the recognize and resist camp. 



Reply
#23
(07-06-2016, 08:11 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: In conclusion I'll say that I believe wholeheartedly that the return to the old Mass is not ever going to happen.  It's a pipe dream.  The best case scenario is some sort of hybrid Mass that comes out of centuries of cross fertilization between the two.  I don't see it as reasonable or even realistic for the old to simply return full swing while the new is abolished. Like it or not the new rite and all that goes with it are part of Catholicism now.

FB,

I understand your point, and I agree that traditionalists often have a very idealistic and impractical vision. After long consideration, though, I really fail to see how there could ever be some "hybridization" or "mutual enrichment" however one terms it.

A "mutual enrichment" or "hybrid" makes sense only of each has something substantial to offer. In biology, you hybridize to get traits of each into an improved offspring.

If, like me, you see that the Novus Ordo has fundamental flaws which were intentionally designed to reduce the expression of the Catholic Faith in the liturgy, and promote a vague Protestant notion, then you would see what I think it has "to offer". This is the only substantial difference between the rites, and I fail to see how the traditional liturgy of the Church could be "enriched" by watering down it's expression of Catholic doctrine and promoting changes that allow for a Protestantized view of the liturgy.

The rest is all accidental, and nothing that wasn't proposed before the Novus Ordo even existed.

Vernacular is accidental, and was allowed in parts of the rites well before 1969. Versus Populum is nothing new, and, apparently, not to be desired, so that's not an "enriching" point. The new "Offertory" is clearly substantially worse, if it could even be considered an offertory. New prefaces or Mass Propers have been added for centuries, and are an accidental part of the rite itself. The expanded use of the laity in the liturgy is not really new, and about as liturgically proper as Versus Populum worship. The Propers have changed over the years, as has the calendar, and these are not substantial parts of the rites either. The new EPs have been shown to be on shaky historical footing.

Strip all that away, and other accidental things and you're left with nothing which could truly "enrich" the traditional rite.

And if it's only accidentals that are being modified in the traditional rite, then it's nothing that hasn't been happening since the first days of the Church. Organic changes in the liturgy happened a great deal before Trent, but even after Trent through legitimate customs developing. But then it's silly to call such changes "hybrids" or suggest that the Novus Ordo is "enriching" the traditional rite any more than we would say that painting our house the same color we saw on HGTV is hybridizing our house with the one on the tube.
Reply
#24
(07-05-2016, 08:59 PM)Sir Charles Napier Wrote:
(07-05-2016, 08:53 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(07-05-2016, 07:09 PM)Cetil Wrote: "When I was received in audience by the Holy Father last April, Pope Francis asked me to study the question of a reform of a reform and of how to enrich the two forms of the Roman rite. This will be a delicate work and I ask for your patience and prayers. But if we are to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium more faithfully, if we are to achieve what the Council desired, this is a serious question which must be carefully studied and acted on with the necessary clarity and prudence. (Cardinal Sarah)"

He also asked priest to begin celebrating Mass "ad orientem" this Advent!

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/201...3w9QPmGPcc

C.



I wonder what the reaction would be if all the priest starting facing ad orientem. I bet there would  be widespread pandemonium and outrage..

I agree. And I'd pay to see it. :)

Save your money and wait until this advent and see what happens.
:) :) :)
Reply
#25
Here is part of an essay that gives insight into this situation;

For this offbeat insight I am grateful to my friend Father Paul Mankowski, SJ. He tells me that in Polynesian languages, there are two different words that can be translated into English as “we” or “us.” One of these words indicates that “we” means you and I, and possibly others. The other form of “we” refers to I and others, but not you. The first word would be used when you wanted to say: "We need to get together more often." The second word would be appropriate for saying: "We don't want anything to do with you."

What does this have to do with the Eucharistic liturgy, you might ask. Good question.

In the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest speaks for the congregation, addressing petitions to God. (“We come to you, Father…” “We ask you…” We offer them…” “…as we celebrate…” “Remember also, Lord…”) But in the versus populum liturgy, as he addresses God, the priest faces the people. This posture is inherently confusing.

Imagine that you and your friends want to make a petition to some powerful figure—the King, let us say. You appoint someone to speak for the group. You approach the King, and your spokesman addresses him. Does the spokesman face toward you? Of course not! He faces with you, toward the King, because you are all in this together.

Under what circumstances would the spokesman face toward the people he represents? Only if he is informing them about decisions reached by some intermediary body—if, say, he is announcing the results of a vote taken up by the members of your group. Or, perhaps, if he is speaking for a “we” that does not necessarily include you.

When the priest takes his stance opposite the people, his body-language sends the message that he is doing something important, and the people are watching. When he stands at the front of the people, with everyone facing in the same direction, he speaks for the “we” that includes us all. If you want the active participation of the laity, don't use a liturgical posture that leaves them wondering whether they are included.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentar...fm?id=1164
Reply
#26
I'm curious why Pope Francis, given his liberal proclivities, would request a "reform of the reform"?
Reply
#27
(07-06-2016, 09:29 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-06-2016, 08:11 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: In conclusion I'll say that I believe wholeheartedly that the return to the old Mass is not ever going to happen.  It's a pipe dream.  The best case scenario is some sort of hybrid Mass that comes out of centuries of cross fertilization between the two.  I don't see it as reasonable or even realistic for the old to simply return full swing while the new is abolished. Like it or not the new rite and all that goes with it are part of Catholicism now.

FB,

I understand your point, and I agree that traditionalists often have a very idealistic and impractical vision. After long consideration, though, I really fail to see how there could ever be some "hybridization" or "mutual enrichment" however one terms it.

A "mutual enrichment" or "hybrid" makes sense only of each has something substantial to offer. In biology, you hybridize to get traits of each into an improved offspring.

If, like me, you see that the Novus Ordo has fundamental flaws which were intentionally designed to reduce the expression of the Catholic Faith in the liturgy, and promote a vague Protestant notion, then you would see what I think it has "to offer". This is the only substantial difference between the rites, and I fail to see how the traditional liturgy of the Church could be "enriched" by watering down it's expression of Catholic doctrine and promoting changes that allow for a Protestantized view of the liturgy.

The rest is all accidental, and nothing that wasn't proposed before the Novus Ordo even existed.

Vernacular is accidental, and was allowed in parts of the rites well before 1969. Versus Populum is nothing new, and, apparently, not to be desired, so that's not an "enriching" point. The new "Offertory" is clearly substantially worse, if it could even be considered an offertory. New prefaces or Mass Propers have been added for centuries, and are an accidental part of the rite itself. The expanded use of the laity in the liturgy is not really new, and about as liturgically proper as Versus Populum worship. The Propers have changed over the years, as has the calendar, and these are not substantial parts of the rites either. The new EPs have been shown to be on shaky historical footing.

Strip all that away, and other accidental things and you're left with nothing which could truly "enrich" the traditional rite.

And if it's only accidentals that are being modified in the traditional rite, then it's nothing that hasn't been happening since the first days of the Church. Organic changes in the liturgy happened a great deal before Trent, but even after Trent through legitimate customs developing. But then it's silly to call such changes "hybrids" or suggest that the Novus Ordo is "enriching" the traditional rite any more than we would say that painting our house the same color we saw on HGTV is hybridizing our house with the one on the tube.

When you put things the way you do it makes sense, to distinguish between the essential and accidental elements of a given rite.  I would agree with you the the old rite in every way is better in terms of essentials than the old, but I can't help but think that the authorities of the Church must have thought otherwise and changed things.  Its hard for me to imagine the the Catholic Church could so thoroughly deconstruct it's patrimony and enshrine the cut and paste job put in its place into its very lifeblood for half a century, and than decide to just scrap it and go back to the way things were before.

Everything has changed to fit with the ideas enshrined in the documents of  Vatican II and the New Mass. Millions upon millions of people around the world have accepted the new stuff, from the last several popes ( if in fact they are true popes at all) to the lowliest parish priest in the far flung hinterlands of some mission parish in Africa. The Roman Catholic Church cannot possibly return fully to the old Mass without rolling back the clock on the way it presents itself to the world in almost every way. The old triumphalism is gone. It's not coming back, or if it is there is no way I can personally see how, without further destroying the credibility of the Church or perhaps vindicating sedevacantism .

Perhaps it's sloppy to refer to the new and the old cross fertilizing as a " hybrid", but somehow I think that the most likely possibility of the future Roman liturgy will be the Mass of Paul VI with a few elements taken from the older liturgy, perhaps only accidentals. I think the three year Lectionary is here to stay, as is the abundance of lay participation and probably all 4 Eucharistic prayers. I just cannot possibly see how it could be otherwise.

The problem I see with criticizing almost everything about the new Mass is that--- at least for me--- it weakens my faith in the Catholic Church and undermines its credibility and its witness. If the Church can so dreadfully destroy its patrimony and enshrine novelty into its lifeblood and I must sift through what I believe is Catholic and what isn't than how can I trust the papacy, the hierarchy or even any teaching of the Church at all? If the liturgy itself chosen by the lawful authorities of the Church is so wrong why should I be obedient to Roman Catholicism? The way I see it traditionalists are fighting for a vision of the Church and living through a narrative that no longer exists outside a few chapels here and there, in old books and the imagination. It doesn't reflect in any way,shape or form the vision of post conciliar Catholicism, which has been enshrined into the lifeblood and documents of the Church so thoroughly and to be nearly impossible to unravel.

As you all know, I've struggled with all this stuff for a very long time.

Reply
#28
(07-06-2016, 09:40 AM)ermy_law Wrote:
(07-05-2016, 11:01 PM)Cetil Wrote: Bishop Dominique Marie Jean Rey who is attending the conference announced this:
"Your Eminence, I am only one bishop of one diocese in the south of France. But in response to your appeal I wish to announce now, that certainly on the last Sunday of Advent of this year in my celebration of the Holy Eucharist at my cathedral, and on other occasions as appropriate, I shall celebrate ad orientem—towards the Lord who comes. Before Advent I shall address a letter to my priests and people on this question to explain my action. I shall encourage them to follow my example. I shall ask them to receive my personal testimony, as the chief pastor of the diocese, in the spirit of one who wishes to call his people to rediscover the primacy of grace in their liturgical celebrations through this practice. I shall explain that this change will help us to recall the essential nature of Christian worship: that it must always be oriented to the Lord."

C.

If facing east is worship "towards the Lord who comes" and "the primacy of grace" is obtained by conducting "their liturgical celebrations" with "this practice," then why is this bishop going to do this only on the last Sunday of Advent and why is he going to merely "encourage [his priests] to follow [his] example"?

Well as he mentioned he would begin the catechesis during Advent and since Cardinal Sarah did not put it in the form of a command he would not be ready to try that either. I would imagine not many in his diocese even know what "ad orientem" is anymore.


C.
Reply
#29
(07-07-2016, 01:30 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I'm curious why Pope Francis, given his liberal proclivities, would request a "reform of the reform"?

Me too, perhaps he has been misjudged or does not want to be pigeonholed into any particular point of view. Witness his odd embrace of Bishop Fellay and his pledge not to hurt the SSPX. Meanwhile the liberal liturgists at places like the "Pray, tell" blog are quite upset about this. They wonder just how Pope Francis will celebrate come Advent and that may be the best question of all.

EDIT: I just noticed a very striking passage in Cardinal Sarah's address:
"At this point I repeat what I have said elsewhere, that Pope Francis has asked me to continue the liturgical work Pope Benedict began (see: Message to Sacra Liturgia USA 2015, New York City). Just because we have a new pope does not mean that his predecessor’s vision is now invalid. On the contrary, as we know, our Holy Father Pope Francis has the greatest respect for the liturgical vision and measures Pope Benedict implemented in utter fidelity to the intentions and aims of the Council Fathers."

http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2016/jul...2015-july/


C.
Reply
#30
(07-07-2016, 05:20 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: The problem I see with criticizing almost everything about the new Mass is that--- at least for me--- it weakens my faith in the Catholic Church and undermines its credibility and its witness. If the Church can so dreadfully destroy its patrimony and enshrine novelty into its lifeblood and I must sift through what I believe is Catholic and what isn't than how can I trust the papacy, the hierarchy or even any teaching of the Church at all?

There's a distinction between the theological criticism and the accidental criticism.

The latter is often just complaining and unproductive idealism, fostered by a lack of knowledge of Church history, a lack of understanding of the liturgy in its proper contexts, and a reactionary attitude that if you take it to is logical conclusion (which most don't) would hold that most Novus Ordo Catholic have no hope of salvation since while their liturgy make be "valid" it somehow does nothing to give them grace. That's not what most would say, or believe, but it's the logical conclusion of the attitude most of those folks embody. This is, sadly, the majority of what we hear from the traditionalist arguments against the Novus Ordo, when we have people who are willing to become stay-at-homes when the priest asks them to sing the responses, or stand at the Preface and Sanctus.

The theological arguments go deeper, and embody the whole perspective of Church history. There is where we begin to understand exactly what happened, and what is substantially wrong with the Novus Ordo. It's also where we find balance, since we can see exactly what is theologically problematic, and what accidental changes lead to theological problems.

If you follow the history of the Church, you won't find the grave kind of doctrinal or liturgical problems you see today—our crisis is unprecendented in its extent and magnitude—but it is not a rosy picture. Consider the Great Western Schism, for instance. The Church survived for decades despite widespread confusion over who was the Pope. The Church has survived Popes and Councils who have taught erroneous things (Pope John XXII, Councils of Pisa, Basel and Constance, etc).

But you are certainly right that all of this does undermine the trust in the Papacy. That's a symptom of the crisis, and is a cross we must bear. We do have the Divine promises, though, and plenty of examples throughout Church history that God's promises about the Church are true, despite what we men try to do.

I'm reminded of the Belloc line in which he said that he did not believe in the Divinity of the Church merely because the Church taught it, but because "no institution run with an equal mixture of ineptitude and corruption would have lasted a fortnight".

In short, the resolution to every great Crisis in the Church has always involved God showing us that He's in control because the solution comes about through circumstances that no human could ever have arranged. Take the Arian Crisis, for example. A Council did not end Arianism, nor did Popes. It took the majority of the Churchmen accepting an ambiguous pro-Arian Creed, and then an apostate emperor bent on the destruction of Christianity took aim at the Arians (who were taken by him as the mainstream Church). God so arranged for an Apostate to save the Church.

God's ways are no ours, and every crisis has shown this, precisely to show that we're not in control. He is. It's Lazarus and the tomb each time ...

If your faith in Peter is weakened, that may be reasonable, given the circumstances, but we do not have supernatural Hope in Peter, but in God. We know, however, the protections that God gives Peter in certain circumstances, and that even Peter could fail when those protections were not in place.

(07-07-2016, 05:20 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: If the liturgy itself chosen by the lawful authorities of the Church is so wrong why should I be obedient to Roman Catholicism?

Because the history of the Church shows that the lawful authorities do make errors, and fail in their duties, yet it also shows that the Church is of Divine institution.

The only reasonable solution if we understand this is to sort through things as best we can with God's help, not trying to substitute ourselves for the Magisterium, but sticking to what we know it has said and done consistently.

(07-07-2016, 05:20 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: The way I see it traditionalists are fighting for a vision of the Church and living through a narrative that no longer exists outside a few chapels here and there, in old books and the imagination. It doesn't reflect in any way,shape or form the vision of post conciliar Catholicism, which has been enshrined into the lifeblood and documents of the Church so thoroughly and to be nearly impossible to unravel.

The "Experiment of Tradition" of Msgr Lefebvre does seem to work. Granted traditionalists are a small fraction of Catholics, but look at the disproportionate effect on Church authorities, and the liturgy. Look at the numbers. Traditional groups, or those conservative places which retain some of the traditional trappings are steady or growing, and the more liberal wing is dying and leaving. Statistics support that analysis.

The present crisis, though, like every other one isn't matter of a series of well-planned human solutions to recover some past state. The 19th century lead to Vatican II, so it's not a matter of going back, but disposing ourselves to be God's instruments, praying, doing penance, and waiting for Him to show us what to do. The Mystical Body, like Christ, is suffering in its Passion.

Christ waited for Lazarus to die precisely because only God can raise the dead. The Church too may even "die" in order to prove that God is in charge, since only He could resurrect the Church. You are right that it seems too far gone for any human solution.

But once Christ performed the miracle, He told those around to unbind Lazarus. Once God provides the solution, we have to be ready to go to work.

(07-07-2016, 05:20 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: As you all know, I've struggled with all this stuff for a very long time.

You and many others. You're not alone. But what has God promised:

Quote:A time is coming when the Lord of hosts will prepare a banquet on this mountain of ours ... Gone the chains in which he has bound the peoples, the veil that covered the nations hitherto ... No furrowed cheek but the Lord God will wipe away its tears; gone the contempt his people endured in a whole world’s eyes; the Lord has promised it. When that day comes, men will be saying, He is here, the God to whom we looked for help, the Lord for whom we waited so patiently; ours to rejoice, ours to triumph in the victory he has sent us. (Is 25.6 ff.)

Suffering and confusion have a purpose, if they are born with patience, for the love of God.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)