Cardinal Martini unwilling to celebrate TLM

[Conciliar]

Did anyone else see this story about Cardinal Martini’s unwillingness to celebrate the extraordinary form?

**Retired cardinal explains why he won’t celebrate old Mass **
BY CINDY WOODEN
Catholic News Service

ROME – Although he loves the Latin language and would have no technical difficulty even preaching in Latin, retired Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini of Milan, Italy, said he would not celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
The 80-year-old cardinal, writing in an Italian newspaper July 29, said he admired Pope Benedict XVI’s “benevolence” in allowing Catholics “to praise God with ancient and new forms” by permitting wider use of the 1962 form of the Mass.
However, he wrote in the July 29 edition of Il Sole 24 Ore, his experience as a bishop convinced him of the importance of a common liturgical prayer to express Catholics’ unity of belief.
Pope Benedict allowed for wider use of the Tridentine Mass in a July 7 document. The Tridentine Mass is the Latin-language liturgy that predates the Second Vatican Council; it was last revised in the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal.
The cardinal, a widely respected biblical scholar, said the first reason he would not use the old Mass is because “with the Second Vatican Council there was a real step forward in understanding the liturgy and its ability to nourish us with the word of God, offered in a much more abundant way than before.”
The old Mass has a oneyear cycle of Scripture readings, while the new Mass uses a three-year cycle of different readings for Sundays and a two-year cycle for weekdays.
Cardinal Martini said his second reason for not going back to the old Mass was that it would be symptomatic of “that sense of closure that emanated from the entire kind of Christian life that people lived then.”
The cardinal wrote, “I am very grateful to the Second Vatican Council because it opened doors and windows for a Christian life that was happier and more humanly livable.”
Obviously, he said, it was possible to live a holy and happy Christian life before the council, but “Christian existence lacked that little grain of mustard that gives added flavor to daily life.”
Cardinal Martini’s third reason was the need for unity in prayer within each diocese and a practical concern for bishops already struggling to find and assign priests in a way that makes the Eucharist available to as many people as possible.
“Here I trust in the traditional good sense of our people, who will understand how the bishop already struggles to provide the Eucharist to everyone and that it would not be easy to multiply the celebrations or pull out of thin air ordained ministers capable of meeting all the needs of individuals,” he said.

 

[fix]

“Christian existence lacked that little grain of mustard that gives added flavor to daily life.”

a practical concern for bishops already struggling to find and assign priests in a way that makes the Eucharist available to as many people as possible.
“Here I trust in the traditional good sense of our people, who will understand how the bishop already struggles to provide the Eucharist to everyone and that it would not be easy to multiply the celebrations or pull out of thin air ordained ministers capable of meeting all the needs of individuals,” he said

If I am following him before 1962 Catholics lacked some flavor? After that we have less priests, but more flavor?

 

[Caesar]

He is only one a no small number of Bishops who answered the Pope’s orders with “non serviam”.

 

[Image_of_God]

He is known to have disagreed with the Church in other matters…

So I heard on The World Over.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

He is only one a no small number of Bishops who answered the Pope’s orders with “non serviam”.

Just out of curiosity, when did the Pope order priests to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass?

 

[Conciliar]

Just out of curiosity, when did the Pope order priests to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass?

While the sincerity of your “curiosity” seems pretty clear, it would be disingenuous for anyone to maintain that issuing public statements about an unwillingness to celebrate this valid and venerable rite out of personal preference on the heels of the Motu Proprio doesn’t border on insolence. Cardinal Martini is entitled to his opinion, but taking it to the press reeks of insubordination. It’s difficult to discern a sincere desire for unity in an act that is so clearly divisive. His Eminence should have kept his thoughts private.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

While the sincerity of your “curiosity” seems pretty clear, it would be disingenuous for anyone to maintain that issuing public statements about an unwillingness to celebrate this valid and venerable rite out of personal preference on the heels of the Motu Proprio doesn’t border on insolence. Cardinal Martini is entitled to his opinion, but taking it to the press reeks of insubordination. It’s difficult to discern a sincere desire for unity in an act that is so clearly divisive. His Eminence should have kept his thoughts private.

You’re right that it’s not terribly sincere. Honestly, I don’t care which Mass is celebrated as long as I have the choice to continue attending the ordinary form celebrated in English. I do have a problem with people who act like if we don’t return to pre-Vatican II days there’s something wrong.

As far as the Cardinal, it’s no secret that many bishops (and one assumes, cardinals) opposed the idea of celebrating the Latin Mass more widely. In that light I guess it’s not surprising to hear that they still feel that way. As to whether they should keep it to themselves…honestly I’m not sure. Perhaps a retired cardinal has more room to speak out without having to worry about who he might offend.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The cardinal wrote, “I am very grateful to the Second Vatican Council because it opened doors and windows for a Christian life that was happier and more humanly livable.”
Obviously, he said, it was possible to live a holy and happy Christian life before the council, but “Christian existence lacked that little grain of mustard that gives added flavor to daily life.”

He has got to be kidding. So, all the strife, division, heresies, plummeting Mass attendance, vocations, conversions, etc. are just signs of a Christian life that is happier and more humanly livable?!

The stripping of the churches, the liturgy, the sacred music, the art and architecture has really added flavor to daily life?!

I wonder how much “flavor” Cardinal Martini would consider Italy to have if all the art, architecture and music that naturally grew up around the Traditional Latin Mass over the centuries was suddenly stripped from his country?

 

[paramedicgirl]

It’s not surprising that the Pope is being opposed by his own Cardinals. Just from the text of Martini’s statement where he says, "Obviously, it was possible to live a holy and happy Christian life before the council, but “Christian existence lacked that little grain of mustard that gives added flavor to daily life, " you can tell where his interests lie.

Hopefully when the Pope appoints those fifteen new cardinals this fall, they will be more true to the Magisterium.

 

[Br_Mark]

paramedic girl,

“Hopefully when the Pope appoints those fifteen new cardinals this fall, they will be more true to the Magisterium”

The Cardinals and Bishops are part of the Magisterium. So how could they be more true ?

Br. Mark, OSB

 

[Walking_Home]

It’s not surprising that the Pope is being opposed by his own Cardinals. Just from the text of Martini’s statement where he says, "Obviously, it was possible to live a holy and happy Christian life before the council, but “Christian existence lacked that little grain of mustard that gives added flavor to daily life, " you can tell where his interests lie.

Hopefully when the Pope appoints those fifteen new cardinals this fall, they will be more true to the Magisterium.

---

Hopefully those new cardinals will have a grasp as to what the following means.

RS–2004

[15.] The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise”[35], also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock.

 

[Erich]

The Tridentine Mass is the Latin-language liturgy that predates the Second Vatican Council; it was last revised in the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal.
…
The old Mass has a one year cycle of Scripture readings, while the new Mass uses a three-year cycle of different readings for Sundays and a two-year cycle for weekdays.

Just curious… couldn’t the next edition of the Roman Missal use the same three-year cycle of different readings for Sundays and two-year cycle for weekdays for both the old Mass and the new Mass?

 

[John_Higgins]

What Cardinal Martini did not say: “I wish the Holy Father hadn’t issued the Motu Proprio.” or “If I were still the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, I would not let my priests celebrate the extraordinary form.”

He simply said HE wouldn’t say it.

Further, I would like to see all of what His Eminence wrote. I trust CNS like I trust FoxNews, maybe less.

John

 

[Conciliar]

What Cardinal Martini did not say: “I wish the Holy Father hadn’t issued the Motu Proprio.” or “If I were still the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, I would not let my priests celebrate the extraordinary form.”

He simply said HE wouldn’t say it.

Further, I would like to see all of what His Eminence wrote. I trust CNS like I trust FoxNews, maybe less.

John

C’mon John. One need not be Sherlock Holmes to read between these lines. Is there anything in his comments that makes you think he favors the MP’s release? How about that he is nuetral about it? Of course he wishes the Holy Father hadn’t issued it. If you had to bet your farm on it either way, you would say the same.

With or without more context, (which I wouldn’t mind seeing either) the question in my mind is what exactly is to be gained by taking this sentiment public? If a desire for unity is truly the impetus for the Cardinal’s feelings on the matter, are we supposed to believe that he honestly believes issuing that kind of public statement is step toward unity? Either way you cut it, he is guilty of poor judgement at best.

My opinion is that he is being unduly provocative and insolent. His statements reek of sour grapes. His idea of reform is obviously different from the Holy Father’s, and he is ventilating through a sympathetic media; an act that is unbecoming a Prince of the Church.

I would be willing to bet that Cardinal Martini had an opportunity to voice his opinion before the MP was issued.

 

[Conciliar]

paramedic girl,

“Hopefully when the Pope appoints those fifteen new cardinals this fall, they will be more true to the Magisterium”

The Cardinals and Bishops are part of the Magisterium. So how could they be more true ?

Br. Mark, OSB

Oh Brother

Somehow I think you know what she meant. Maybe not. Being part of the Magisterium doesn’t imply that every opinion an individual bishop holds is in union with it.

BTW - A cardinal need not be part of the Magisterium. Cardinal Dulles comes to mind…

 

[paramedicgirl]

Oh Brother

Somehow I think you know what she meant. Maybe not. Being part of the Magisterium doesn’t imply that every opinion an individual bishop holds is in union with it.

BTW - A cardinal need not be part of the Magisterium. Cardinal Dulles comes to mind…

Exactly. If every bishop’s errors and disobedience were considered part of the official teaching authority of the Church, we would be in a lot of trouble.

 

[marchoi]

Hopefully when the Pope appoints those fifteen new cardinals this fall, they will be more true to the Magisterium.

I would agree that Cardinal Martini should not have come out publicly and expressed his disagreement with the motu proprio.

At the same time (and forgive me if I’'m wrong), isn’t the MP exactly that? “By his own accord,” and not with consent of the entire magisterium? I mean, an MP certainly doesn’t hold the same level of authority as a magisterial teaching on doctrine or dogma, etc., right?

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conciliar
Oh Brother

Somehow I think you know what she meant. Maybe not. Being part of the Magisterium doesn’t imply that every opinion an individual bishop holds is in union with it.

BTW - A cardinal need not be part of the Magisterium. Cardinal Dulles comes to mind…

Exactly. If every bishop’s errors and disobedience were considered part of the official teaching authority of the Church, we would be in a lot of trouble.

---

Just the idea tied my stomach in a knot.

 

[Walking_Home]

I would agree that Cardinal Martini should not have come out publicly and expressed his disagreement with the motu proprio.

At the same time (and forgive me if I’'m wrong), isn’t the MP exactly that? “By his own accord,” and not with consent of the entire magisterium? I mean, an MP certainly doesn’t hold the same level of authority as a magisterial teaching on doctrine or dogma, etc., right?

---

This will clarify the weight of authority meant “By his own accord”.

RS–2004
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[15.] The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise”[35], also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You’re right that it’s not terribly sincere. Honestly, I don’t care which Mass is celebrated as long as I have the choice to continue attending the ordinary form celebrated in English. I do have a problem with people who act like if we don’t return to pre-Vatican II days there’s something wrong.

As far as the Cardinal, it’s no secret that many bishops (and one assumes, cardinals) opposed the idea of celebrating the Latin Mass more widely. In that light I guess it’s not surprising to hear that they still feel that way. As to whether they should keep it to themselves…honestly I’m not sure. Perhaps a retired cardinal has more room to speak out without having to worry about who he might offend.

1. He is not obliged by any law to offer it​

1. He is committing no sin in expressing this unwillingness
2. He has not said that he will under no circumstances offer it
3. It is in any case not the form of the Roman Rite prevalent & customary in the Roman Rite
4. It was revised in 1969, by the authority of the Church, so he can hardly be criticised for obeying the manifest will of the Church by offering the Liturgy which it has, in cosequence of an Ecumenical Council, approved.
5. It is unfortunately a fact that the unrevised Missal has been used as a totem by schismatic groups - why should he yield to them or to those who think of of the revised Missal as they do ? Catholics keep pleading for bishops to be strong against error - and he is being strong against error. Error is error, even if it takes the external form of love of the unrevised Missal - the problem is to tell Catholics from malcontents - or from schismatics such as the SSPX or the CMRI. The SSPX and similar indescribable monsters won’t be satisfied until the Church has become a gigantic Lefebvrist sect - they are not Catholics, but megalomaniacs. Cardinal Martini is helping to protect the Church against the poison of these monsters.
6. A problem with Traditionalism is, that it influences people to be so keen on getting what they want (as though they were the whole Church, rather than a minority in it) that they confuse freedom to have their lawful desires fulfilled (which are fine) with taking away the equally legitimate freedom of other Catholics (of most Catholics, that is) to worship as the Church allows, & encourages & wishes them to worship (& that, is not good at all).
7. Cardinal Martini is unlikely to be ignorant of schismatic groups in Italy, or of those who confuse a fossilised notion of tradition with fidelity to it. He does not have the freedom from responsibility for his acts that we do - our criticisms of bishops go nowhere, because we are nobodies in the Church, so what we say is irrelevant in practice. Because of his position, he is much less free in this respect. He has to think of more than one small group in the Church - he has to consider the good of all.