Heavens no. I loved Cardinal Ratzinger and I love Pope Benedict XVI. However what he might say as Pope is far more relevant to my instruction and edification than anything he said prior to his Papacy. Grace, faith and logic dictate that reality.I hope that you are not advocating we dismiss out of hand what he wrote in those days unless he reaffirms them now and that somehow those writings are now meaningless given his position as the Pope.
There is a documentary on youtube that deals with the history of the liturgical movement and the development of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. It doesn’t focus on clown masses or other abuses. It also doesn’t vilify anyone. It’s objective and I think it might be beneficial to watch.I have often wondered what inspired the Mass of Paul VI?
Where did the Mass come from? It does not resemble the traditional Mass of the Roman rite, and many of the prayers are different. Obviously the New Mass contains elements of the Old Mass, but many elements were discarded and replaced. For example, who decided that the Priest should face the people? Why did they create various Canons?
The men who created the Pauline Missal must have been inspired by other liturgies? Or did they just make it up as they went along?
I see the Pauline Mass as a simplified version of the Tridentine Mass; the OF contains all of the important elements of liturgy but it has been stripped down, so to speak. Why did the inventors of the OF feel the need to replace ancient prayers with newer alternatives?
Surely, the prayers and gestures of the OF must have some historical basis? I don’t believe that the committee responsible for the OF would just compose prayers.
I want to discuss the history of the creation of the Mass of Paul VI. What were the intentions of the creators? What historical sources did they draw from? Why did they choose to create a totally new Mass? Do the seeds of the New Mass originate in pre-Vatican II days?
Let’s have a discussion on the creation of the Pauline Missal, including the history, inspiration, and motives of the committee responsible.
Please don’t turn this into another Pauline Mass v Tridentine Mass thread.
They are both equally valid Masses of the Roman rite, so let us remember to be charitable in our responses.
Thanks
I’ve watched this documentary many times. It is very informative and I will admit that I was very shocked the first time I watched it.There is a documentary on youtube that deals with the history of the liturgical movement and the development of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. It doesn’t focus on clown masses or other abuses. It also doesn’t vilify anyone. It’s objective and I think it might be beneficial to watch.
Dempsey, this is documented ad nauseum in many books. Just Goggle Bugnini and read all of the viewpoints. The progression to the creation of the New Mass is well documented.
Thanks guiseppe. I’ve read many articles on Bugnini and I am totally shocked by it all.Here is one link to get you started:
Some are convinced that due to Bugnini’s ties with Freemasonry, his intentions for proceeding as he did were nefarious. I believe that in the 50’s and the 60’s leading up to the council, the Vatican was becoming quite polarized. Although ostensibly a work of fiction, the novel VATICAN by M. Martin is purported to be a faithful depiction of the political forces at play during that period.Thanks guiseppe. I’ve read many articles on Bugnini and I am totally shocked by it all.
According to the author Michael Davies, the whole affair surrounding the creation of the Pauline Missal seems like a conspiracy to destroy the Roman rite. And to be honest, the arguments and quotations he provides seem to bear this out.
The fact that Bugnini was the author of the original schema for Sacrosanctum Concilium really suprised me. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy directly contradicts the changes made durning the development of the OF; and the man responsible for those changes was the author of Sacrosanctum Concilium, to a large degree. Bugnini disregarded his own Constitution! However, in certain places, Sacrosanctum is ambiguous and allows a broad interpretation; Article 40 is a great example of this. The Constitution, while being very specific in some areas, leaves enough room for a liberal interpretation. I think Bugnini deliberately wrote the document in such a way as to allow a liberal interpretation, while placating orthodox Bishops at the same time.
His status as Cardinal/Pope is not that important to me, though I realize that the words of the Vicar of Christ hold a different “weight”. You see, I have followed this man’s thoughts & belief’s throughout the years. The following article by Andrew Greenwich is from 1988, a mere 20 yrs. after the council:Huge correction re Ratzinger-Benedict.
Nobody is entitled to turn the words of Cardinal Ratzinger into the supposed words of Pope Benedicat XVI. If Pope Benedict repeats those words as Pope, then he has said it as Pope.
Andrew GreenwichContents - May 1988 - Buy a copy now
Cardinal Ratzinger: defender of the Faith - Andrew Greenwich. As a rule, the people whom Ratzinger worries most are those who have carved out roles - and even careers - for themselves as Church “reformers”. The horrible thought which Ratzinger prompts in the minds of many a critic is that the work of the past 25 years might have been a mistake."Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has established among a large body of vanguard Catholics, a reputation as the enemy of aggiornamento. Ratzinger’s main opponents tend to be ranked among the clergy, and when they are not fierce they are stubborn
Then there is another group of Catholics for whom Ratzinger is music to the ears. In this group lay Catholics predominate. For some, the Ratzinger assessment of the post-conciliar Church resonates with their basic instincts; for others the Cardinal’s words are things they have said themselves, though perhaps not so gracefully nor with the benefit of such deep learning.
For these Catholics the work of Cardinal Ratzinger has been a confirmation and a consolation, though they have no illusions, now that Rome has made clear its judgement that the work of renovation will be anything but slow and patchy.
Between the clergy-dominated opposition and the lay-dominated Ratzinger supporters are the mass of Catholics. In Australia three-quarters of them no longer practise their religion. Of the remaining quarter that do - not a bad figure given that, from a strictly human viewpoint, the Church has hardly been a credible force of late in Western society - they will follow the lead of whoever has charge of their parish or diocese.
Interesting post - but odd that you do not mention Teresa of Avila who is recognized as a Doctor of the Church and whose life and work emphasizes the need for total interior conversion prior to giving any thought to other issues of concern.His status as Cardinal/Pope is not that important to me, though I realize that the words of the Vicar of Christ hold a different “weight”. You see, I have followed this man’s thoughts & belief’s throughout the years. The following article by Andrew Greenwich is from 1988, a mere 20 yrs. after the council:
Cardinal Ratzinger: defender of the Faith
The sentence, “Ratzinger’s main opponents tend to be ranked among the clergy” is true. They are the die-hard, white haired hippie priests, Bishops, Archbishops, etc. of the 60’s. They are the lay “liturgists”, hermits, EEM’s & quasi-religious who have made a CAREER out of “Church work”.
The last sentence is obvious to anyone reading this forum. I’ve heard the statement so many times here…“I do what my Bishop says to do”. That kind of thinking was seldom indulged in prior to Vat. II & it surely doesn’t get it now. . God gave us BRAINS, & we have a responsibility to His Church. I used to flinch when I heard the “Catholics are blind sheep”, phjrase, as it was so far from my truth. Most of the laity of the past were passionate about their faith & passion usually leads to some disagreement at the least. I remember hot discussions, between my Father & his friends over the Reformation, Gallileo & the new priest in the parish. No one left these discussions angry, though they were, as I said, passionate. It was akin to politics, everyone had an opinion…most often an informed opinion…some, in hindsight, were right. Those who turned out to be wrong?? At least, they cared enough to address problems within the Church. I don’t remember anyone burying their heads & saying, “I’ll do whatever my Bishop says”.
As the Executive branch of the government is a watch-dog over the Military, so the laity, the “lowly” parish priest, the humble monk & the Mothers & Fathers of our future Catholics…are watchdogs over the hierarchy of our Church.
The 11th-century St. Peter Damian, the patron saint of reformers within the Church, whose chief concern was “the large number of priests and bishops who were seducing or compelling boys and adolescents to perform acts of sodomy"…was a Benedictine monk.
Women reformers figure prominently: first the 13th-century Clare of Assisi, who wasn’t even a man for goodness sake, introduced a generation of suspicious clerics, from popes to friars, to the perplexing (for that time) idea “that women are full Christians.” Catherine of Siena in the 14th-century, again “just a nun” insisted that women had a duty to involve themselves in the reform of the church and dared with some success to confront popes. American Dorothy Day in the 20th-century tackled the indifference of the church to war, the plight of the homeless, the hungry, and the destitute.
Past reformers all. Not a Bishop, Cardinal or Archbishop among them.
Interesting post - but odd that you do not mention Teresa of Avila who is recognized as a Doctor of the Church and whose life and work emphasizes the need for total interior
conversion prior to giving any thought to other issues of concern.
I apologize for leaving Teresa of Avila off my the list of Church reformers. I hadn’t thought of her as a “reformer” per se, but she did reform the Carmelite Order. BTW., anyone who loves God as much as Teresa did, loves His Church & should take action on anything that hurts said Church.
Odd also, in my view that you say this: “As the Executive branch of the government is a watch-dog over the Military, so the laity, the “lowly” parish priest, the humble monk & the Mothers & Fathers of our future Catholics…are watchdogs over the hierarchy of our Church.”
I’ve never heard any such comparison made and since we, as Catholics, are under the supreme authority of the Holy Father who wears the shoes of Peter and is truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, I can’t imagine how the Church requires any system of the checks-and-balances that we like to believe is in place with our national government.
In brief, I think Fr. Z has said a few times at WDTPRS that the current Missal still presumes Mass will be celebrated ad orientem, there are parts of it where the Priest is told to face the people for example, which obviously wouldn’t be necessary if the intention was the Priest should face the people throughout.For example, who decided that the Priest should face the people? Why did they create various Canons?
The men who created the Pauline Missal must have been inspired by other liturgies? Or did they just make it up as they went along.
I apologize for leaving Teresa of Avila off my the list of Church reformers. I hadn’t thought of her as a “reformer” per se, but she did reform the Carmelite Order. BTW., anyone who loves God as much as Teresa did, loves His Church & should take action on anything that hurts said Church.
(1.) I never mentioned the Pope, as a dissident, only some of the members of our hierarchy i.e. Archbishops & Bishops.
(2.) It was St. Peter Damien who brought to the Pope’s attention the horrible state of the Monasteries in that day. He would not have even known about it if St. Damien hadn’t informed him.
(3.) When an anti-pope was supported and the Great Western Schism began, Urban VI invited Catherine to Rome. He needed her support. She went to Rome in 1378 and from there wrote regular letters to state and Church leaders in defense of Pope Urban’s sole right to the papal throne.
(3.) Though our Pope’s are infallible re faith & morals, they cannot & could not see the state of our Seminaries from 1960-the present. Nor, would He have known about the sacrelgious Masses in Ca. if the ordinary members of the laity hadn’t sent him actual videos.
Our Pope is a very holy man & infallible when speaking excathedra about faith & morals. However, he is not & cannot be everywhere, nor can he know about abuses unless he’s informed. This “Let Benedict do it & I’ll do as my Bishops says”, is a coward’s way to avoid the responsiblity we have toward our Church.
Are you kidding me? Ratzinger and Benedict are the same person. This statement of Benedict is not infallible, and neither are all of the statements made by Ratzinger as Pope. The writings of Pope Benedict before he became Pope are the the same expressions of Ratzinger after he became Pope.Huge correction re Ratzinger-Benedict.
Nobody is entitled to turn the words of Cardinal Ratzinger into the supposed words of Pope Benedicat XVI. If Pope Benedict repeats those words as Pope, then he has said it as Pope.
Not neccessarily true. The mindset and attitudes of a person might very well change from the time their are a shift supervisor, to a plant manager, to the CEO of the corporation.Are you kidding me? Ratzinger and Benedict are the same person. This statement of Benedict is not infallible, and neither are all of the statements made by Ratzinger as Pope. The writings of Pope Benedict before he became Pope are the the same expressions of Ratzinger after he became Pope.
It sounds as if the Missal of Paul VI allows for too much variation, and this is why the Mass is able to be celebrated so differently from the EF. Perhaps the reason that the Pauline Missal is so different is because of the freedom given to the celebrants.In brief, I think Fr. Z has said a few times at WDTPRS that the current Missal still presumes Mass will be celebrated ad orientem, there are parts of it where the Priest is told to face the people for example, which obviously wouldn’t be necessary if the intention was the Priest should face the people throughout.
Read the quotations again. He is saying that actual Mass itself is a fabrication; “a banal on-the-spot product.”Ratzinger isn’t saying that the Mass of Paul VI is fabricated. He is saying that the liturgy as it is celebrated in many parishes is fabricated and not done according to the rubrics.
It’s been argued that this document lacked the legal scholarhip to promulgate his Mass. Instead the “promulgation” was actually later presented by Cardinal Gut.Here is how Pope Paul explained it himself when he promulgated it:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html
The Consilium that wrote the New Mass consisted of hundreds of members. They were divided into groups. Some were given the task of writing new music, some the liturgy for the rites of Baprism, Confirimation. the Breviary, revising the calendar etc. However only group 10 were given the task of writing the new liturgyBy discussing the creators of the New Mass, we will be able to discern their motives for creating the NO. We will also be able to discover the symbolism behind the OF. With this in mind, does anyone know the identity of the “committee of professors” who “fabricated” the Pauline Mass?