Cardinal Martini unwilling to celebrate TLM

[ComradeAndrei]

“Should” and “will” are two different things. Since no one’s salvation hangs (or should hang) on the language they use in worship or in understanding God, I doubt the shepherds are going to force the sheep. Do you?

Force? No, however, why do we need to just sit back and say, “Oh well, folks don’t want to learn Latin or, really, put much of any effort into a truly active participation in Mass. I guess we leave them to sing-a-long songs and ‘ministries’ and call that active participation.”

Aim high, shoot high. God forbid we actually expect something out of anyone.

 

[AlexV]

If any congregation complains that during the ordinary form the common, ordinary parts are sung in Latin…if they find that offensive or otherwise bothersome…they need catechesis. Starting with Paul VI and his instruction to the world’s bishops in Jubilate Deo in 1975. Paul DESIRED that the congregations of the world be taught the ordinary in Latin. The popes have consistently recommended its use.

It’s important to remember that Latin is always the NORM, and the vernacular the exception to that norm. If people have problems with merely singing a Sanctus or Agnus Dei in Latin, they need catechesis.

 

[palmas85]

“Should” and “will” are two different things. Since no one’s salvation hangs (or should hang) on the language they use in worship or in understanding God,** I doubt the shepherds are going to force the sheep. Do you?**

Kirk, they’ve tried for the past forty years to force the sheep and many of then still are.

 

[ecsouth]

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

Brother -

While I don’t think I have any serious problem with the point you are trying to make, my understanding is that the Magisterium consists of the Cardinals and Bishops in union with the Pope. Cardinal Martini is hardly the worst of the lot, however. He’s entitled to have a contrary opinion on a subject that doesn’t require the assent of faith.

But my choice for best response to the MP comes not from the princes of the Church but from among the “humble laborers in the Lord’s vineyard”. Check out this. Maybe this is the kind of priest that the episcopate could use more of: Someone simply making a good faith effort to do what is asked of him, regardless of whether that request comes from the hierarchy or the laity (or in this case, from both).

Ed

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

In regards to demand for the TLM I would like to make a few points. Most (or many) Catholics nowadays have never even been to a TLM. If they hear of one, all they might need to hear is, “it’s in Latin” to make them think, “that’s too difficult” and keep them away. And I agree with the points that those who attend Mass will most likely do so at the time and place most convenient for them. Of course, many others who didn’t like the liturgical changes simply stopped attending Mass.

Another point is that in American society we tend to value comfort and convenience above almost all else. I also think our culture is rather superficial. Thus I won’t be surprised, for instance, if Hilary Duff outsells Mozart this year. Or if a comic outsells Shakespeare. Thus I wouldn’t be surprised if many people would prefer the all vernacular New Mass because it is easier and it is what they are used to (as it was essentially forced upon them forty years ago).

That being said, I will contradict myself somewhat and say that if people experience both the New Mass as it is normally celebrated and a TLM (especially where the responses are sung in Gregorian Chant by the congregation and/or a choir), and particularly if people are able to experience the TLM more than one or two times, then I think the TLM would come out on top.

A corollary example could be Shakespeare and/or classical music. At first mention or look, many students might have a negative attitude towards Shakespeare as it is unfamiliar and perceived to be too hard. I am reminded of a true story of a woman who started teaching inner city youth and introduced them to Shakespeare. At first the reaction (as I remember) was, “you can’t do that.” It was perceived as too hard and irrelevant. And that was the initial reaction of the students. Yet when she persisted and started immersing them in Shakespeare, when she wanted to go back to more of a comic book approach as a break, the students didn’t want it. They had gotten used to the depths of Shakespeare and didn’t want something superficial. It wasn’t satisfying anymore.

Same with classical music. At first some might hear it and think of it as “boring.” Yet when exposed over time, they might find themselves unsatisfied with their previous pop music.

 

[Conciliar]

Thank you, thank you, thank you my friend!!
I thank you on behalf of the whole Christianity of Milan!!
Speaking seriously: I respect all of you, also who spoke rather heavy words on my Archbishop for more than 20 years.
But I can argue that maybe I have a better knowledge both about Card. Martini and the chronical distortion of the truth of his mind from the media, especially - but not only - Italian media.
In all these years he has been presented as… enemy of Catholic institutions more loyal to Church’s Magisterium (then I should have faced the music, but I didn’t…), instigator of the use of contraceptive methods, bitter enemy of Card.Ratzinger, champion of impossible dialogues with devil’s supporters (the worst of Italian and international secolarism) and so on.
But, as John says, when we go and see what exactly Card.Martini said and the accurate context of his words, then all is scaled down.
It has been built a false myth of an almost-heretical Card.Martini, so when he says something on a sensitive topic, even the best Christianity of the world, as you are, tends to apply the “heretical” interpretation. Instead of giving Card.Martini the benefit of the doubt, people give him a sort of “curse of the doubt”.

I say it smiling, but the matter is rather serious, don’t you think?
A friendly greeting to all of you, especially to paramedicgirl that I met on the wonderful Divine Mercy blog of TraditionalCath, that I invite to visit!

Aurelio

Salute, Aurelio!

Your post implies that Cardinal Martini’s public position as reflected in the story would be viewed in a substantially different light given “accurate context.” OK. Let’s have it. I’d be interested in seeing the “context” you’re referring to. Please do post it.

I must admit, I’m not expecting you to post anything that will change the salient facts of the story. I suspect you’re blindly rushing to his defense much in the same manner as you accuse others of rushing to condemn.

For my part, context or not, the Cardinal has chosen to use the media to air his dissenting opinion. That much of the story is irrefutable, and it is an act of effrontery that deserves criticism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Force? No, however, why do we need to just sit back and say, “Oh well, folks don’t want to learn Latin or, really, put much of any effort into a truly active participation in Mass. I guess we leave them to sing-a-long songs and ‘ministries’ and call that active participation.”

Aim high, shoot high. God forbid we actually expect something out of anyone.

Comrade: I’m learning my Latin prayers in obedience to the Holy Father’s request. I do not, however, believe that that constitutes a “shooting” higher. Their prayers in English are as “high.”

And I think we should be careful about the “God forbid” part. That assumes that what WE believe to be best exists as the best in God’s Mind. We already expect people to be actively engaged in Mass. Some are, some aren’t. How will Latin help those who aren’t? How will it enhance the engagement of those who aren’t? I’m not saying Mass cannot be in Latin, but then we’ve gone around about this before.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In regards to demand for the TLM I would like to make a few points. Most (or many) Catholics nowadays have never even been to a TLM. If they hear of one, all they might need to hear is, “it’s in Latin” to make them think, “that’s too difficult” and keep them away. And I agree with the points that those who attend Mass will most likely do so at the time and place most convenient for them. Of course, many others who didn’t like the liturgical changes simply stopped attending Mass.

Another point is that in American society we tend to value comfort and convenience above almost all else. I also think our culture is rather superficial. Thus I won’t be surprised, for instance, if Hilary Duff outsells Mozart this year. Or if a comic outsells Shakespeare. Thus I wouldn’t be surprised if many people would prefer the all vernacular New Mass because it is easier and it is what they are used to (as it was essentially forced upon them forty years ago).

That being said, I will contradict myself somewhat and say that if people experience both the New Mass as it is normally celebrated and a TLM (especially where the responses are sung in Gregorian Chant by the congregation and/or a choir), and particularly if people are able to experience the TLM more than one or two times, then I think the TLM would come out on top.

A corollary example could be Shakespeare and/or classical music. At first mention or look, many students might have a negative attitude towards Shakespeare as it is unfamiliar and perceived to be too hard. I am reminded of a true story of a woman who started teaching inner city youth and introduced them to Shakespeare. At first the reaction (as I remember) was, “you can’t do that.” It was perceived as too hard and irrelevant. And that was the initial reaction of the students. Yet when she persisted and started immersing them in Shakespeare, when she wanted to go back to more of a comic book approach as a break, the students didn’t want it. They had gotten used to the depths of Shakespeare and didn’t want something superficial. It wasn’t satisfying anymore.

Same with classical music. At first some might hear it and think of it as “boring.” Yet when exposed over time, they might find themselves unsatisfied with their previous pop music.

I have to disagree with you on some aspects. To assume that people will only attend what is most convenient is to assume that the NO, in the vernacular, is incapable of eliciting the kind of love/affection as the TLM. I think many people’s reaction would be and has been that they love the Mass in their own language, not that it’s more convenient. As for beauty, I frankly find the austere, noble simplicity of the NO quite beautiful and deeply moving. It doesn’t mean I don’t value what the TLM has meant and continues to mean to the Church. Shakespeare is a slightly bad example, in light of that, because the beauty of Shakespeare doesn’t detract from the beauty of more simple or stark prose or poetry, anymore than their beauty detracts from Shakespeare. It’s like the Mojave Desert and the Sonoma Coast. I would rather live on the Sonoma Coast, but I cannot deny that the Mojave has a beauty all it’s own.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I have to disagree with you on some aspects. To assume that people will only attend what is most convenient is to assume that the NO, in the vernacular, is incapable of eliciting the kind of love/affection as the TLM. I think many people’s reaction would be and has been that they love the Mass in their own language, not that it’s more convenient. As for beauty, I frankly find the austere, noble simplicity of the NO quite beautiful and deeply moving. It doesn’t mean I don’t value what the TLM has meant and continues to mean to the Church. Shakespeare is a slightly bad example, in light of that, because the beauty of Shakespeare doesn’t detract from the beauty of more simple or stark prose or poetry, anymore than their beauty detracts from Shakespeare. It’s like the Mojave Desert and the Sonoma Coast. I would rather live on the Sonoma Coast, but I cannot deny that the Mojave has a beauty all it’s own.

From my perspective, it seems as if at the time of the Council and before, there was almost no one calling for or envisioning an all vernacular Mass (nor all the other changes that came with the reform). When these changes were thrust upon them I think they usually either (unfortunately) stopped going to Mass or, knowing they had to go to Mass regardless of the form of the rite, kept going. So I really do not know how many love the form of the new rite in the vernacular since it doesn’t seem hardly anyone was calling for it and when it came, it was not as if one had a choice between continuing to go to the Tridentine or adopting the New Mass (which I think would have given a better assessment of the popularity of either).

If you value the austere simplicity of the Novus Ordo over the style of the Tridentine then God bless you (and I think your description is accurate).

I think we’ll have to disagree with the Shakespeare example. What Shakespeare (or any great literature or music) does is provide a standard that other works may approach in beauty and content or not. Thus it is that those exposed to great works of art will be better able to discern the true status of other works. And so if a work is stark yet truly great exposure to other great works will help one rightly assess that. However if the work is superficial or not great that will be exposed as well. God bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

From my perspective, it seems as if at the time of the Council and before, there was almost no one calling for or envisioning an all vernacular Mass (nor all the other changes that came with the reform). When these changes were thrust upon them I think they usually either (unfortunately) stopped going to Mass or, knowing they had to go to Mass regardless of the form of the rite, kept going. So I really do not know how many love the form of the new rite in the vernacular since it doesn’t seem hardly anyone was calling for it and when it came, it was not as if one had a choice between continuing to go to the Tridentine or adopting the New Mass (which I think would have given a better assessment of the popularity of either).

**While there may be something in what you say, I know too many faithful, orthodox older Catholics who say that they welcomed the change to the vernacular Mass. **

**We recently got a new pastor, very orthodox, reverent celebrant, first thing he told us was that he was concerned with only one thing: our salvation. This was after several priests who had major problems (one even made the national news). He held a “town hall” meeting. There weren’t a lot of questions or complaints (aside from the use of Latin at the 9:30 Mass and the wearing of blue jeans by the youth choir at the 5:00). Oddly, in this post MP time, not a soul in this educated, professional congregation requested the Tridentine Mass. I fully expected someone to do so, but no one did. **

If you value the austere simplicity of the Novus Ordo over the style of the Tridentine then God bless you (and I think your description is accurate). **Thank you. I’ve always held this attitude toward those who treasure the TLM (though it’s easier to hold if they don’t denigrate the Pauline). **

I think we’ll have to disagree with the Shakespeare example. What Shakespeare (or any great literature or music) does is provide a standard that other works may approach in beauty and content or not. Thus it is that those exposed to great works of art will be better able to discern the true status of other works. And so if a work is stark yet truly great exposure to other great works will help one rightly assess that. However if the work is superficial or not great that will be exposed as well. God bless.

**Where I disagree with the last paragraph is that Shakespeare is an arbitrary choice. He’s great and his contribution and genius cannot be denied, but he isn’t necessarily the standard, because there isn’t one standard (there may be ONE in an age or even two or even six, but the standard may be different in another age). And what music shall we say that all other music should be judged against? Within the Church, certainly, Gregorian Chant, which I love. But I’ve never heard ANYTHING as spare and hauntingly beautiful as the Reproaches sung in Arabic by a Chaldean Christian woman and that includes Gregorian Chant. **

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

**Where I disagree with the last paragraph is that Shakespeare is an arbitrary choice. He’s great and his contribution and genius cannot be denied, but he isn’t necessarily the standard, because there isn’t one standard (there may be ONE in an age or even two or even six, but the standard may be different in another age). And what music shall we say that all other music should be judged against? Within the Church, certainly, Gregorian Chant, which I love. But I’ve never heard ANYTHING as spare and hauntingly beautiful as the Reproaches sung in Arabic by a Chaldean Christian woman and that includes Gregorian Chant. **

In literature or music or art there are artists and works known as great. In literature it could be Shakespeare or Dostoevsky. In art, Michelangelo, Raphael, Da Vinci, etc. In music Mozart, Beethoven, etc. Certain artists are universally acknowledged as great and certainly their art encompasses different styles and are not carbon copies of each other. When someone has some familiarity with these artists, they can instinctively recognize other works of art that approach this. Perhaps there was something great in the Chaldean Christian woman’s singing, I wouldn’t doubt it.

However, in our relativistic age, where we don’t like to say there is right or wrong, we also don’t like to say one work of art is better than another. Couple that with the dumbing down of our culture where people can grow up without much exposure to great art and we have a situation where people may have no idea what is good or bad (just look at the popular music scene) because they have hardly ever been exposed to anything great artistically. And thus everything is subjective–what I like, and no one can tell me that what I like isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

 

[John_Higgins]

Conciliar:

OK. Let’s have it. I’d be interested in seeing the “context” you’re referring to. Please do post it.

A note to Signore Aurelio, as well.

The letter His Eminence wrote can be accessed on a web site called: www.ilsole24ore.com

I found the article and then the site wanted me to register to get it. So with my four years of Latn, some knowledge of Spanish, the fact that my dad knew some Italian, and help from Babelfish, I was able to register. Then it still wouldn’t let me get the whole article. Anyway, that’s where it is. Do a search on martini carlo and it’s second or third.

John

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In literature or music or art there are artists and works known as great. In literature it could be Shakespeare or Dostoevsky. In art, Michelangelo, Raphael, Da Vinci, etc. In music Mozart, Beethoven, etc. Certain artists are universally acknowledged as great and certainly their art encompasses different styles and are not carbon copies of each other. When someone has some familiarity with these artists, they can instinctively recognize other works of art that approach this. Perhaps there was something great in the Chaldean Christian woman’s singing, I wouldn’t doubt it.

However, in our relativistic age, where we don’t like to say there is right or wrong, we also don’t like to say one work of art is better than another. Couple that with the dumbing down of our culture where people can grow up without much exposure to great art and we have a situation where people may have no idea what is good or bad (just look at the popular music scene) because they have hardly ever been exposed to anything great artistically. And thus everything is subjective–what I like, and no one can tell me that what I like isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

I agree with all you said. I just simply think that “great” is quite a bit broader and a work of any kind may be able to appeal to more than one source in determining it’s worth.

 

[Petergee]

A really fun game for people who like numbers:

Take a list of American dioceses.

Make a list now of the seminarians each diocese has.

Compare that to the diocese’s generosity or lack thereof in offering the extraordinary form.

I’ve played this game. It’s fun. And enlightening. And it’s not about the superiority or inferiority of any liturgy. It’s about the whole package: a bishop who is hostile to this liturgy tends to have problems in other areas, while a bishop who is open-mindedly generous, as Rome has asked, is usually quite an example of priesthood in other areas.

For an expert version of the game, factor in the average AGE of the seminarians. That game gets even more fun.

So would you please give us the statistics you came up with so we can all be enlightened?.

 

[Petergee]

The Holy Father said that the purpose of the MP to make the TLM more available is to help bring about unity. Cardinal Martini went to the media to say he will not celebrate the TLM because in his opinion it will foster disunity.

That’s a gross exaggeration. According to the article he merely said “his experience as a bishop convinced him of the importance of a common liturgical prayer to express Catholics’ unity of belief.”

If this isn’t opposition to the content of the MP, what the heck is it?

Nothing in the story suggested that Cd Martini opposes any of the provisions of the MP. He has a perfect right to express his opinions about which form he prefers and why.

Would anybody complain if a cardinal said that he personally does not intend to say, e.g. Eucharistic Prayer #2, because he has personal objections to it although he admires the Pope for allowing it as an option? Of course not. But the Tridentine-rite fanatics scream blue murder when a Cardinal makes the slightest personal criticisms of the Tridentine rite. The intensity of their reaction suggests that they do NOT in fact see the “extraordinary form” as just one of two permissible options, but as something which is uniquely holy and beyond any criticism, unlike the ordinary form.

We can call it whatever we want, but either way, the sour grapes media game that Cardinal Martini is playing, IMO, does nothing to foster unity, but rather the exact opposite.

I did not not detect any note of “sour grapes” or game-playing by Cd Martini in the report. It gives me the impression of a dedicated and loyal churchman giving his honest and perfectly legitimate opinions.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That’s a gross exaggeration. According to the article he merely said “his experience as a bishop convinced him of the importance of a common liturgical prayer to express Catholics’ unity of belief.” Nothing in the story suggested that Cd Martini opposes any of the provisions of the MP. He has a perfect right to express his opinions about which form he prefers and why.

Would anybody complain if a cardinal said that he personally does not intend to say, e.g. Eucharistic Prayer #2, because he has personal objections to it although he admires the Pope for allowing it as an option? Of course not. But the Tridentine-rite fanatics scream blue murder when a Cardinal makes the slightest personal criticisms of the Tridentine rite. The intensity of their reaction suggests that they do NOT in fact see the “extraordinary form” as just one of two permissible options, but as something which is uniquely holy and beyond any criticism, unlike the ordinary form.
I did not not detect any note of “sour grapes” or game-playing by Cd Martini in the report. It gives me the impression of a dedicated and loyal churchman giving his honest and perfectly legitimate opinions.

With respect, Petergee, you don’t see it as something of “bad form” for a Prince of the Church to publicly state that he will not celebrate one of the two forms of the Rite to which he belongs and is a bishop? I think that’s problematic.

 

[TNT]

I think all should get off of Martini’s case!
It’s already too hard to find a liberal that actually speaks without a forked tongue. If he’s being honest in his opinion, then so be it.
You can criticize his opinion but the man himself is pretty straight forward…a rare asset in the Vatican or anywhere else in the conciliar church.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I think all should get off of Martini’s case!
It’s already too hard to find a liberal that actually speaks without a forked tongue. If he’s being honest in his opinion, then so be it.
You can criticize his opinion but the man himself is pretty straight forward…a rare asset in the Vatican or anywhere else in the conciliar church.

I’d have to agree with that assessment. It would actually be nice if we could have a nice “dialogue” about the liturgy with the Cardinal himself. At least it would be interesting.

 

[brown_bear]

Salute, Aurelio!

Your post implies that Cardinal Martini’s public position as reflected in the story would be viewed in a substantially different light given “accurate context.” OK. Let’s have it. I’d be interested in seeing the “context” you’re referring to. Please do post it.

I must admit, I’m not expecting you to post anything that will change the salient facts of the story. I suspect you’re blindly rushing to his defense much in the same manner as you accuse others of rushing to condemn.

For my part, context or not, the Cardinal has chosen to use the media to air his dissenting opinion. That much of the story is irrefutable, and it is an act of effrontery that deserves criticism.

Hi Conciliar!

The advice of considering the right context is general, not referring particularly to this case. Anyway, even in this case a sort of “context” could be identified: that is Card.Martini no more is Archbishop of Milan, he is a “simple” scholar resident in Jerusalem. It could sound a subtle sophistic remark, but it means that his opinion no more has anything of “magisterial”: it’s a simple opinion of a scholar, and he knows.
I tend to interpret his opinion as John did, even though I must admit that I apply the benefit of the doubt in favor of Card.Martini. But this is the duty of each Catholic in favor of each priest, all the more reason for a Bishop. The fact that Card.Martini has been my Archbishop is incidental: I would apply the same benefit of the doubt to your Bishop.
So I don’t think there is an act of effrontery, maybe an act which could be interpretated as such. It’s not, not the same thing.
My esteem for you is beyond dispute.
Aurelio

 

[brown_bear]

A note to Signore Aurelio, as well.

The letter His Eminence wrote can be accessed on a web site called: www.ilsole24ore.com

I found the article and then the site wanted me to register to get it. So with my four years of Latn, some knowledge of Spanish, the fact that my dad knew some Italian, and help from Babelfish, I was able to register. Then it still wouldn’t let me get the whole article. Anyway, that’s where it is. Do a search on martini carlo and it’s second or third.

John

Sir John, my friend,
now when you need some translation from noble Shakespeare language to “dolce stil novo” tongue, if it is not a 300-feet-paper, you may freely turn to me
See you soon!
Aurelio