Cardinal Martini unwilling to celebrate TLM

[Conciliar]

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

Aurelio,

Veremente, sei molto simpatico. Grazie. Non parlo l’italiano bene, allora bisogno di ritornare al’inglese!

OK… Giving *a person *the benefit of a doubt is usually a good idea, even moreso in the case of bishop. But that doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to the obvious shortcomings in one’s behavior. I don’t see a whole lot of room for doubt here. It is a fact that he went to the media to voice an opinion contrary to the motives of the Holy Father.

*Card.Martini no more is Archbishop of Milan, he is a “simple” scholar resident in Jerusalem. *

He’s quite a bit more than that, Aurelio. He’s a Prince of the Church. Naturally his public statements carry more sway in the public’s mind, as they should. It’s a lifelong responsibility that he bears, retired or not.

Grazie, anche.

 

[Conciliar]

The intensity of their reaction suggests that they do NOT in fact see the “extraordinary form” as just one of two permissible options

And you see gross exaggeration in my view? You’ve somehow managed to convince yourself that you can guage the “intensity” of people’s reactions to draw a conclusion that no one in this thread has suggested. How you do that???

What was the Holy Father’s motive for issuing the MP?

What is Cardinal Martini’s motive for refusing to celebrate the TLM?

These are easy questions, Peter. You don’t even need to use your intensity monitor. Just read! It honestly baffles me that anyone could not see opposing viewpoints between the Holy Father’s explanation and Cardinal Martini’s public statements.

Even more troubling is that anyone could fail to see “bad form,” as JKirk called it, in the Cardinal “taking it to the streets” approach.

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?

Yes, as a matter of fact. I would question two things here: One, this notion of tossing out a compliment along with an objection is pretty transparent. You’re a bright guy Peter, but your post is little more than drivel. (Not really. Just making an illustration. It’s the same thing! See what I mean?)

I’d also question the wisdom of taking this kind of objection to the media. So yes, I think a lot of people would complain about this, and rightly so. I tend to expect our Cardinals to function somewhere above sound bite diplomacy, especially when the subject is the Mass.

 

[Petergee]

And you see gross exaggeration in my view? You’ve somehow managed to convince yourself that you can guage the “intensity” of people’s reactions to draw a conclusion that no one in this thread has suggested. How you do that???

From the fact that people found it necessary to start a thread to complain about it, and the fact that this thread has continued so long with several people insistent on finding fault with it despite it being repeatedly pointed out that Cd Martini did nothing wrong.

What was the Holy Father’s motive for issuing the MP?

What is Cardinal Martini’s motive for refusing to celebrate the TLM?

These are easy questions, Peter. You don’t even need to use your intensity monitor. Just read! It honestly baffles me that anyone could not see opposing viewpoints between the Holy Father’s explanation and Cardinal Martini’s public statements.

They have differing opinions on various points, certainly. It’s a gross exaggeration to say that they are “opposing” each other or that Cd Martini is disobeying the pope.

Even more troubling is that anyone could fail to see “bad form,” as JKirk called it, in the Cardinal “taking it to the streets” approach.

No I don’t think it’s “bad form”. B16 doesn’t seem to object to it. In fact his letter implies that he realises that many loyal Catholics will have different opinions from his on the matter.

Yes, as a matter of fact. I would question two things here: One, this notion of tossing out a compliment along with an objection is pretty transparent. You’re a bright guy Peter, but your post is little more than drivel. (Not really. Just making an illustration. It’s the same thing! See what I mean?)

My you’re quite the conspiracy theorist aren’t you? If Martini voices a different opinion he’s “opposing” the pope, but when he agrees with the pope he’s just hypocritically and “transparently” trying to hide jhis opposition!

I’d also question the wisdom of taking this kind of objection to the media. So yes, I think a lot of people would complain about this, and rightly so. I tend to expect our Cardinals to function somewhere above sound bite diplomacy, especially when the subject is the Mass.

It was not a sound bite. He writes a regular newspaper column, as do many other bishops. I guess the full column is not much shorter than B16’s letter.

 

[AlexV]

Cardinal Martini is retired and living in Jerusalem. It was gratuitous of him to issue a public commentary on this issue as a prince of the Church who has no history of ever being involved in any of the cardinatial level meetings about the matter, or ever being a member of the PCED. In addition, for a prince of the Church to say that he would never celebrate the extraordinary usage of his own Rite is disedifying.

 

[Mag_Uidhir]

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.

I agree, if they have a problem take it to Rome, hanging their dirty linen in public , we have many Priest and Bishops doing that in Ireland, like throwing out a bone to a pack of dogs for a free for all.

So it’s the press that will change Rome ? I don’t think so, Rome doesn’t bend to this type of pressure, it’s hasn’t for 2000 years, so they can continue to huff and puff, the house of Rock is still standing.

I couldn’t agree more with one statment that came out of the Vatican recently, (must have read my mind) that those inside the Church are doing more damage than those outside, or words to that effect.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Then, Andreas, they need to get better PR people. To all outward apprearances, it SEEMS to be about which of the two forms they will celebrate and which they won’t. AND that expansive spirituality and way of Catholic living are being lived out by lots and lots of Catholics who do not attend the TLM. Must we attend the TLM in order to do that? Hopefully, we’ll have more and more reverently offered NO masses (though, in my experience, 1) reverence is often in the eye of the beholder and 2) my “bad” NO experiences are overwhelmingly outweighed by the “good” ones), so the Holy Father’s hope of a “good effect” by the TLM on the NO will come to fruition. But there will more than likely always BE a Pauline Rite. I still think it’s as ill done to have societies saying that they will offer this one and won’t offer that one as it is for Cardinal Martini to have stated that he would not ever offer the TLM (particularly reprehensible for a Prince of the Church, to say he would not be offering the extraordinary rite?) I favor the NO, but I will on occasion attend the TLM because it’s a part of my identity, my culture, if you will, as a Catholic. It’s a part of US.

I don’t think their PR people have done anything to obscure the broader reach of their mission. For example, the FSSP’s site says, under “What are we?”:

The mission of the Fraternity is two-fold: first, the formation and sanctification of priests in the cadre of the traditional liturgy of the Roman rite, and secondly, the pastoral deployment of the priests in the service of the Church…

The “pastoral deployment” is spelled out farther down the page as:

In the world, the priests of the Fraternity live in small communities and work to spread the Gospel by means of preaching, catechesis, youth education (scout troops, schools), and organizing pilgrimages and retreats, etc. With the full approval of the Holy See and the permission of local bishops, the priests provide a full sacramental life for the faithful, administered according to the liturgical books of 1962.

So the society itself has told us that they form their priests in the mold of the old liturgy, granted, but then they send them out to care for the good of souls in a whole host of ways that include but are not exclusive to traditional sacraments.

The ICRSS, on the other hand, describes itself as founded at the instigation of priests seeking a traditional formation (it doesn’t limit this to simply “being taught how to say the missal of '62”), getting its start by helping with missionary efforts in Gabon, and then describes itself as

a family of priests and non-priestly members of the Institute, which is centered on the worthy celebration of the Holy Mysteries, the Proclamation of the whole Catholic Truth, and a genuine Catholic lifestyle. *Grace, truth, charity, and culture are elements of “family life” typical to the houses of the Institute. We are always happy to hear that the faithful who visit our apostolates and priories notice the atmosphere of the Institute’s particular spirituality present in all the environments where we live. *(emphasis mine)

Without doing an extensive search of their literature, I can say that having read quite a bit from both societies, I have never seen either one make any special point about which form of the rite they won’t say, they simply emphasize which form of the rite they are dedicated to saying. Perhaps in everyday life the Mass gets overemphasized to the exclusion of their other work, but with that being what is most easily accessible and most noticeably characteristic of them, that doesn’t surprise me. These orders are just as dedicated to the good of souls as other orders, they simply want to work that way according to their particular spirituality, as all other orders are also allowed without having the rationale for their existence questioned with a “is that really different enough to warrant a whole order? - I can help the poor/teach/tend the sick/visit prisoners/etc. without joining an order”

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

To throw my hat in the ring on the age-old demand debate, I honestly don’t think the majority of Catholics will go for the TLM. Too many have simply been formed not to appreciate it. I don’t mean actively turned against it, I just mean that many, though not all, have been shown that informality, familiarity, and contemporaneity are the hallmarks of good liturgy. Some will encounter a TLM and say “Wow, I’ve been missing out,” many more will probably say “This isn’t the way we conduct liturgies, it’s not what I’m used to.” The people in the middle will say, “I can see what elements attract people to this, but I’m not giving up the liturgy I’ve also grown to love; I’ll take a little of both.” My coming of age in the NO was under the tutelage of “continuity-minded” priests and nuns, so my first encounter with the TLM was one of fulfillment, something that took the principles I had learned to their logical conclusions. Others were raised differently, so a combination of formation and personal preference will condition a range of responses.

Do I happen to think one use is better than the other? Well, yes and no. It depends on which element we’re talking about. Certain things I think are definitely expressed better theologically in my rite of choice, so on these points I would say one is superior. In other areas I recognize a simple pious preference. That said, my belief that certain elements are superior doesn’t make me think the worshipers are superior. There’s no “All the smart, devout Catholics will embrace the TLM while all the loonies and idiots will stick with their NO.” Our hearts and minds have simply been formed differently, and our experiences of the NO are going to be different as well. Some will love the TLM, others will be more guarded, most will simply not find sufficient reason to notice or to go back.

 

[Conciliar]

From the fact that people found it necessary to start a thread to complain about it, and the fact that this thread has continued so long with several people insistent on finding fault with it despite it being repeatedly pointed out that Cd Martini did nothing wrong.
They have differing opinions on various points, certainly. It’s a gross exaggeration to say that they are “opposing” each other or that Cd Martini is disobeying the pope.
No I don’t think it’s “bad form”. B16 doesn’t seem to object to it. In fact his letter implies that he realises that many loyal Catholics will have different opinions from his on the matter.
My you’re quite the conspiracy theorist aren’t you? If Martini voices a different opinion he’s “opposing” the pope, but when he agrees with the pope he’s just hypocritically and “transparently” trying to hide jhis opposition!
It was not a sound bite. He writes a regular newspaper column, as do many other bishops. I guess the full column is not much shorter than B16’s letter.

Your thoughts on the matter are extraordinarily brilliant, but I tend to think that you’re so giddy about having a left-of-center Cardinal who lacks discretion doing your bidding in the press that your otherwise keen sense of insight is being clouded.

That didn’t sound transparent, did it?

 

[brown_bear]

Aurelio,

Veremente, sei molto simpatico. Grazie. Non parlo l’italiano bene, allora bisogno di ritornare al’inglese!

OK… Giving *a person *the benefit of a doubt is usually a good idea, even moreso in the case of bishop. But that doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to the obvious shortcomings in one’s behavior. I don’t see a whole lot of room for doubt here. It is a fact that he went to the media to voice an opinion contrary to the motives of the Holy Father.

*Card.Martini no more is Archbishop of Milan, he is a “simple” scholar resident in Jerusalem. *

He’s quite a bit more than that, Aurelio. He’s a Prince of the Church. Naturally his public statements carry more sway in the public’s mind, as they should. It’s a lifelong responsibility that he bears, retired or not.

Grazie, anche.

Caro amico,
ti ringrazio molto per le tue gentili parole.
Look: our attitudes are close, in spite of appearance, mainly for the implicit common agreement about the content of the papal “Motu proprio” at issue.
Your last paragraph (about the responsibilities of a Cardinal) is indisputable.
What remains discordant is if Card.Martini attitude is or is not an act of insubordination, an effrontery.
In my and John’s opinion, is not.
But, since evaluations on Card.Martini attitudes aren’t matter of Magisterium , I fully respect your opinion.

A presto!
Aurelio

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t think their PR people have done anything to obscure the broader reach of their mission. For example, the FSSP’s site says, under “What are we?”:

The mission of the Fraternity is two-fold: first, the formation and sanctification of priests in the cadre of the traditional liturgy of the Roman rite, and secondly, the pastoral deployment of the priests in the service of the Church…

The “pastoral deployment” is spelled out farther down the page as:

In the world, the priests of the Fraternity live in small communities and work to spread the Gospel by means of preaching, catechesis, youth education (scout troops, schools), and organizing pilgrimages and retreats, etc. With the full approval of the Holy See and the permission of local bishops, the priests provide a full sacramental life for the faithful, administered according to the liturgical books of 1962.

So the society itself has told us that they form their priests in the mold of the old liturgy, granted, but then they send them out to care for the good of souls in a whole host of ways that include but are not exclusive to traditional sacraments.

The ICRSS, on the other hand, describes itself as founded at the instigation of priests seeking a traditional formation (it doesn’t limit this to simply “being taught how to say the missal of '62”), getting its start by helping with missionary efforts in Gabon, and then describes itself as

a family of priests and non-priestly members of the Institute, which is centered on the worthy celebration of the Holy Mysteries, the Proclamation of the whole Catholic Truth, and a genuine Catholic lifestyle. Grace, truth, charity, and culture are elements of “family life” typical to the houses of the Institute. We are always happy to hear that the faithful who visit our apostolates and priories notice the atmosphere of the Institute’s particular spirituality present in all the environments where we live. (emphasis mine)

Without doing an extensive search of their literature, I can say that having read quite a bit from both societies, I have never seen either one make any special point about which form of the rite they won’t say, they simply emphasize which form of the rite they are dedicated to saying. Perhaps in everyday life the Mass gets overemphasized to the exclusion of their other work, but with that being what is most easily accessible and most noticeably characteristic of them, that doesn’t surprise me. These orders are just as dedicated to the good of souls as other orders, they simply want to work that way according to their particular spirituality, as all other orders are also allowed without having the rationale for their existence questioned with a “is that really different enough to warrant a whole order? - I can help the poor/teach/tend the sick/visit prisoners/etc. without joining an order”

Good to know, Andreas, perhaps it more of an impression given by posters to these fora!

I still see it as an area of concern (and I kind of think the Pope did, judging by the letter to the bishops) that any priest of the Latin Rite (be they Cardinal or the member of an order of any kind) might refuse to say the Masses of that Rite. This is where I think the Holy Father may be cheated of his good and honest hope that the MP will not cause division and why, honestly, for the sake of the unity of the Church in the Latin Rite, a future compromise may be the Tridentine Rite (somewhat altered) alone, but offered in every parish in both the Latin and the vernacular. One Rite, one Mass. I realize we’ve had the Ambrosian, the Dominican, etc., coexisting, but these have not caused the divisions that we see now and which I unhappily predict will get worse (I hope not, of course).

 

[AlexV]

Show me one place where faithful crying for the ordinary liturgy have not had their cries heard.

Now show me one place where faithful crying for the extraordinary liturgy have not had their cries heard.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Show me one place where faithful crying for the ordinary liturgy have not had their cries heard.

Now show me one place where faithful crying for the extraordinary liturgy have not had their cries heard.

Lots of places are operating with shortages of priests. Lots of places must content themselves with a Mass 1 or 2 Sundays a month, then a Communion service the rest of the time.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I still see it as an area of concern (and I kind of think the Pope did, judging by the letter to the bishops) that any priest of the Latin Rite (be they Cardinal or the member of an order of any kind) might refuse to say the Masses of that Rite.

I’m with you on that one, JKirk. To outright refuse to celebrate a valid rite of one’s own church would be suspicious at best, and it was good of His Holiness to point out that one cannot be closed in principle to celebrating one form or another.

 

[Petergee]

Your thoughts on the matter are extraordinarily brilliant, but I tend to think that you’re so giddy about having a left-of-center Cardinal who lacks discretion doing your bidding in the press that your otherwise keen sense of insight is being clouded.

That didn’t sound transparent, did it?

No it just sounded silly. “Left-of-centre” is meaningless in a religious context. As for the idea that I could get a Cardinal to do my bidding!, in the press of a language I don’t even speak! in a newspaper on the other side of the world which I’d never heard of -
I respect your opinion that Cd Martini’s obviously measured, considered and honest statement was “bad form”. I disagree. Bad form would be the bishop who publicly wept when the MP was released and accused B16 of overturning V2. Or (as I mentioned on another thread) the people who publicly display dissent from disciplinary decisions during Mass.

 

[Petergee]

I’m with you on that one, JKirk. To outright refuse to celebrate a valid rite of one’s own church would be suspicious at best, and it was good of His Holiness to point out that one cannot be closed in principle to celebrating one form or another.

It would be. But Cd Martini did NOT “outright refuse” nor suggest he would “be closed in principle” to the extraordinary form, nor did he suggest that anyone else should do so.

 

[AlexV]

We’re not morons, Peter.

Anyone reading the good cardinal’s statement (and it was hardly a surprising statement, given previous ones), could indeed be led to consider what he wrote a refusal both “outright” and “in principle” to celebrate this liturgy.

But the bottom line is, who cares? Does anyone really care what Cardinal Martini writes about this liturgy? He’s over 80 and in Israeli retirement. Was anyone going to ask him to celebrate this Mass? Nope.

As for your little snipe about “public dissent from disciplinary decisions” (because we know that should be a capital offense, as opposed to snarkiness about the Tridentine Mass, which is always defensible in some high-minded, charitable way)…remember, kneeling for Communion is a “venerable custom” Rome has said “cannot be considered disobedient”.

 

[HenryV]

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

Bishops are only part of the Magisterium when in union with the pope. When their theaching differs from the pope they just state their personal opinion, and their personal opinion matters as much as the opinion of any Catholic.

 

[Petergee]

We’re not morons, Peter.

Anyone reading the good cardinal’s statement (and it was hardly a surprising statement, given previous ones), could indeed be led to consider what he wrote a refusal both “outright” and “in principle” to celebrate this liturgy.

Really? Where did he say either of those? I’m getting really sick of the way some people here put words into others’ mouths in order to condemn them.

But the bottom line is, who cares? Does anyone really care what Cardinal Martini writes about this liturgy? He’s over 80 and in Israeli retirement. Was anyone going to ask him to celebrate this Mass? Nope.

A lot of people on this thread seem to care an awful lot about it what he wrote. I don’t care much myself about his opinions. But I do care when people publicly and unfairly traduce a Cardinal of the Church simply because they disagree with his perfectly legitimate opinions (with which I do not agree FYI).

As for your little snipe about “public dissent from disciplinary decisions” (because we know that should be a capital offense, as opposed to snarkiness about the Tridentine Mass, which is always defensible in some high-minded, charitable way)…remember, kneeling for Communion is a “venerable custom” Rome has said “cannot be considered disobedient”.

I don’t know exactly what you mean here, though obviously it’s not meant to be complimentary to me. I’ve never said anything either pro or con kneeling for communion, nor have I ever really thought about it. I’ve said nothing snarky about the Tridentine Mass AFAIR.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep the discussion charitable or I will have to close the thread. Thank you.

 

[Warren_Stassi]

Alzheimers Disease