Liturgical Changes and Benedict XVI

[Kielbasi]

A new pope has been elected, and Benedict XVI has assumed the papacy with a reputation as a conservative.

What kind of results do you expect on a local parish/diocesan level, as far as the liturgy?

 

[RSiscoe]

Kielbasi:

A new pope has been elected, and Benedict XVI has assumed the papacy with a reputation as a conservative.

What kind of results do you expect on a local parish/diocesan level, as far as the liturgy?

One thing I certainly expect is that he will either declare that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated (which is true), or else he will grant a general indult for that Mass, thus allowing any priest to say that mass.

I also believe the new Pope will regularize the situation with the SSPX pretty soon, and I hope he will also elevate one of the SSPX Bishops (Bishop Fellay?) to Cardinal.

 

[RSiscoe]

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI:

I welcomed the fact that now we had a binding liturgical text after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy. But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal.

The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal.** But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used**, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries.

Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a “Missal of Pius V”, created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. The new feature that came to the fore after the Council of Trent was of a different nature. The irruption of the Reformation had above all taken the concrete form of liturgical “reforms”. It was not just a matter of there being a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church alongside one another. The split in the Church occurred almost imperceptibly and found its most visible and historically most decisive manifestation in the changes in the liturgy. These changes, in turn, took very different forms at the local level, so that here, too, one frequently could not ascertain the boundary between what was still Catholic and what was no longer Catholic.

Consequences could only be tragic.

In this confusing situation, which had become possible by the failure to produce unified liturgical legislation and by the existing liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the pope decided that now the Missale Romanum - the missal of the city of Rome - was to be introduced as reliably Catholic in every place that could not demonstrate its liturgy to be at least two hundred years old. Wherever the existing liturgy was that old, it could be preserved because its Catholic character would then be assured. In this case we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic…

"…the old building was demolished… setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something “made”, not something given in advance… When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life.

The disintegration of the liturgy.

"… I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds - partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart…

 

[otm]

RSiscoe:

One thing I certainly expect is that he will either declare that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated (which is true), or else he will grant a general indult for that Mass, thus allowing any priest to say that mass.

I also believe the new Pope will regularize the situation with the SSPX pretty soon, and I hope he will also elevate one of the SSPX Bishops (Bishop Fellay?) to Cardinal.

Don’t hold your breath. First, the Pope does not micro manage anything, including the liturgy.

Second, the Pope does not operate in a vacuum. Any decisions about increasing the TLM would be taken in conjunction with the bishops. that should tell you something right there.

Third, SSPX isn’t going to regularize if they don’t want to. They were invited back to the table by John Paul, and chose not to come. Benedict isn’t going to go chasing them.

And making one of them a Cardinal? When pigs fly…

And if the TLM was not abrogated, then there is no need for an indult. But there is an indult. Therefore it was abrogated.

 

[miguel]

Kielbasi:

A new pope has been elected, and Benedict XVI has assumed the papacy with a reputation as a conservative.

What kind of results do you expect on a local parish/diocesan level, as far as the liturgy?

If our new pope attempts to improve the liturgical situation, it will be great in those places where the local bishop co-operates. But in those places where the local bishop drags his feet, improvement will come slowly, until the foot-draggers die off.

 

[Mt19_26]

miguel:

If our new pope attempts to improve the liturgical situation, it will be great in those places where the local bishop co-operates. But in those places where the local bishop drags his feet, improvement will come slowly, until the foot-draggers die off.

Here’s something I always wondered about. If a diocese has a ‘foot-dragging’ bishop that openly defies Rome why doesn’t Rome seem to do anything about it? They should certainly be able to reassign the bishop to some other position.

 

[Fogny]

Kielbasi:

A new pope has been elected, and Benedict XVI has assumed the papacy with a reputation as a conservative.

What kind of results do you expect on a local parish/diocesan level, as far as the liturgy?

Here is a link, that may provide some clues to the future.
Fr Fessio studied under the now Pope Benedict XVI.
The Pope has written very similiar thoughts and has stated that a reform of the Vatican II reforms is needed.

freerepublic.com/focus/religion/754633/posts

Fogny

 

[RSiscoe]

otm:

Don’t hold your breath. First, the Pope does not micro manage anything, including the liturgy.

Second, the Pope does not operate in a vacuum. Any decisions about increasing the TLM would be taken in conjunction with the bishops. that should tell you something right there.

The Pope is the head of the Church. The Bishops must follow what the Pope says or they become schismatics.

Third, SSPX isn’t going to regularize if they don’t want to. They were invited back to the table by John Paul, and chose not to come. Benedict isn’t going to go chasing them.

The new Pope is no John Paul II. John Paul II reached out to the snake worshippers, I think this Pope will reach out to those who still have the faith (the Traditionalists)

And making one of them a Cardinal? When pigs fly…

Well see.

And if the TLM was not abrogated, then there is no need for an indult. But there is an indult. Therefore it was abrogated.

In 1986, John Paul II commissioned 9 Cardinals - Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palaz-zini, and Tomko - to determine whether or not the Old Mass was ever abrogated. They agreed unanimously that it was never abrogated. This is a fact that can be verified. The Old Mass does not need an Indult to be said. I understand that you may not have heard this, but it is true.

That is why Cardinal Stickler, who was one of the nine Cardinals appointed by John Paul II to study that matter, said the following in his preface to the re-print of the Ottaviani Intervention on November 27, 2004: “Fortunately, the latin roman Mass so-called of St Pius V has never been forbidden: priests and faithful can always draw from the source of the Lex orandi (law of praying) and in this way live faithfully the Lex credendi (law of believing)” (Cardinal Sticker, November 27, 2004 preface to the reprint of the Ottaviani Intervention).

On May 20, 1995 at the Christi Fidelis conference in Fort Lee, New Jersey, Cardinal Stickler gave an address entitled “The Theological Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass”. In the question and answer session after his speech, he was asked about the nine Cardinal Commission of 1986, and whether or not it was true that the Old Mass was never abrogated. The Cardinal explained,

"I can answer because I was one of the Cardinals." He continued,** “the answers given by the nine Cardinals in 1986 was ‘No, the Mass of Saint Pius V (Tridentine Mass) has never been suppressed’.”**

The Cardinal also confirmed the incident regarding the Papal decree. He related that of this commission of nine Cardinals, eight Cardinals were in favor, and one was against, a general permission to be drawn up making it clear that everyone could choose the old Mass as well as the new. The Cardinal explained that John Paul II seemed willing to promulgate this sort of announcement, but a few National Episcopal conferences who found out about the “danger” of this permission, came to the Pope and said “this should not be absolutely allowed because it would be the occasion or the cause of controversy in the people of God – in the faithful themselves … one against the other, and so on.” Cardinal Stickler explained that in the face of this argument, the Pope abstained from signing this decree.

 

[Kielbasi]

I don’t think there will be nearly as many changes as folks might think, or that Benedict might like.

The pope can certainly make a statement mandating more Latin masses, but actually purchasing/moving the fixtures in the local churches, actually teaching priests Latin and chanting, actually teaching altar boys on how to serve Latin mass, all of this requires more than just passive cooperation from the bishops and the faithful.

Time and money would have to be allocated to actually accomplish the goal, a papal bull just saying that it will be done by such and such a date wouldn’t look good if it didn’t actually occur when the time came.

A modest amount of change is possible, certainly the pope will make statements as to the desirability of more consistency and traditional practices in the liturgy, but I suspect that their will be few changes in the short to medium term.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Kielbasi:

A modest amount of change is possible, certainly the pope will make statements as to the desirability of more consistency and traditional practices in the liturgy, but I suspect that their will be few changes in the short to medium term.

I tend to agree. I think the Church learned a lesson about forcing too much change too fast when the new Mass was instituted and we are still reaping the whirlwind to this day.

I think any change may come in the form of more “options” rather than strict “mandates.” But what do I know? :nope:

 

[chicago]

Mt19:26:

Here’s something I always wondered about. If a diocese has a ‘foot-dragging’ bishop that openly defies Rome why doesn’t Rome seem to do anything about it? They should certainly be able to reassign the bishop to some other position.

Another position where he may just spread the problems further. I further, don’t know if it would be all that easy to reassign a bishop without his own consent.

 

[slinky1882]

chicago:

Another position where he may just spread the problems further. I further, don’t know if it would be all that easy to reassign a bishop without his own consent.

I agree on the reassigning part. Where would the bishop be reassigned??? If he is taken out of his diocese or metropolitan, he’s going to end up in some office teaching most likely. The thought of him teaching full-time then is troubling. Plus Rome doesn’t normally come down on foot-draggers if they are trying at all. Generally, Rome deals with renegade bishops only when they absoltely have to (and that call I leave to the Holy Father). Thanks and God Bless.

 

[Orientale_Lumen]

slinky1882:

I agree on the reassigning part. Where would the bishop be reassigned??? If he is taken out of his diocese or metropolitan, he’s going to end up in some office teaching most likely. The thought of him teaching full-time then is troubling. Plus Rome doesn’t normally come down on foot-draggers if they are trying at all. Generally, Rome deals with renegade bishops only when they absoltely have to (and that call I leave to the Holy Father). Thanks and God Bless.

One of the traditions of the East I love is chosing bishops from among the monastics. Maybe Rome could act along similar lines and send problem bishops off to monasteries for a few (or many) years of prayer and reflection? :ehh:

 

[Sean_O_L]

RSiscoe wrote:

That is why Cardinal Stickler, who was one of the nine Cardinals appointed by John Paul II to study that matter, said the following in his preface to the re-print of the Ottaviani Intervention on November 27, 2004: “Fortunately, the latin roman Mass so-called of St Pius V has never been forbidden: priests and faithful can always draw from the source of the Lex orandi (law of praying) and in this way live faithfully the Lex credendi (law of believing)” (Cardinal Sticker, November 27, 2004 preface to the reprint of the Ottaviani Intervention).

On May 20, 1995 at the Christi Fidelis conference in Fort Lee, New Jersey, Cardinal Stickler gave an address entitled “The Theological Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass”. In the question and answer session after his speech, he was asked about the nine Cardinal Commission of 1986, and whether or not it was true that the Old Mass was never abrogated. The Cardinal explained,

“I can answer because I was one of the Cardinals.” He continued, “the answers given by the nine Cardinals in 1986 was ‘No, the Mass of Saint Pius V (Tridentine Mass) has never been suppressed’.”

Which is as relevant as vinegar is to rhubarb!

1. Cardinal Stickler NEVER made it to the position of Pope.
2. Even 1000 Cardinal’s (even of Stickler’s standard) do not possess the Power of the Keys, nor the Legal Authority of a Supreme Law-maker or Law-Interpreter.
3. No - the so-called “Tridentine” Liturgy was NOT abrogated. But it was obrogated and/or derogated. In other words - the new Liturgy of Paul VI simply REPLACED the former Liturgy of Pope St Pius V. An Indult therefore became vital for it to be said lawfully.
4. That the so-called “Ottavianni Intervention” was re-printed as such demonstrates the cock-eyed position of the so-called “traditionalists.”

First of all - Cardinal Ottavianni NEVER wrote the document. He probably never had any (name removed by moderator)ut into it. At the instigation of Archbishop Lefebvre (who was miffed, initially, over the Schemas he was involved with on the Vatican Council II preparitory Commission being thrown out!) - he had the Dominican (in the main) as the author of the Document, which Cardinals Ottavianni (now almost totally blind) and Bacci signed a covering note. Sheesch! Later, of course, Ottaviani fully accepted the so-called Novus Ordo without reservations!

 

[RSiscoe]

Sean O L:

Which is as relevant as vinegar is to rhubarb!

1. Cardinal Stickler NEVER made it to the position of Pope.
2. Even 1000 Cardinal’s (even of Stickler’s standard) do not possess the Power of the Keys, nor the Legal Authority of a Supreme Law-maker or Law-Interpreter.
3. No - the so-called “Tridentine” Liturgy was NOT abrogated. But it was obrogated and/or derogated. In other words - the new Liturgy of Paul VI simply REPLACED the former Liturgy of Pope St Pius V. An Indult therefore became vital for it to be said lawfully.
4. That the so-called “Ottavianni Intervention” was re-printed as such demonstrates the cock-eyed position of the so-called “traditionalists.”

First of all - Cardinal Ottavianni NEVER wrote the document. He probably never had any (name removed by moderator)ut into it. At the instigation of Archbishop Lefebvre (who was miffed, initially, over the Schemas he was involved with on the Vatican Council II preparitory Commission being thrown out!) - he had the Dominican (in the main) as the author of the Document, which Cardinals Ottavianni (now almost totally blind) and Bacci signed a covering note. Sheesch! Later, of course, Ottaviani fully accepted the so-called Novus Ordo without reservations!

SeanOL,

Your hatred for Catholicism, in favor of a “new order of things”, has blinded you. You are a victim of our day. It is sad.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

RSiscoe:

SeanOL,

Your hatred for Catholicism, in favor of a “new order of things”, has blinded you. You are a victim of our day. It is sad.

Actually it is you who appears to hate Catholicism for some other thing. As you deny the Holy Father’s authority and look to some schismatic group and your own ideas to find the truth.

It is you who are a victim of our day. A day of moral relativism, a day where what ever I want to do is ok as I am the authority.

But you are correct, it is sad.

 

[RSiscoe]

ByzCath:

Actually it is you who appears to hate Catholicism for some other thing. As you deny the Holy Father’s authority and look to some schismatic group and your own ideas to find the truth.

It is you who are a victim of our day. A day of moral relativism, a day where what ever I want to do is ok as I am the authority.

But you are correct, it is sad.

You probably do not realize this, but “the spirit of Vatican II” is not the spirit of Catholicism. These are two condradictory spirits, and they are unreconcilable - like fire and water. During the past 40 years of apostacy, the Church has been “reformed” by the spirit of Vatican II. Whether or not this is a “misinterpretation” of the Council is beside the point. That fact is, this false spirit has reeked havoc on the Church. Thus, the Church is no longer recognizeable in many ways, including its new form of worship. The changes in the new mass are the same changes made by the heretics of the 16th century. Only one who is ignorant would deny it. Here are just a few of the changes the heretics of the 16the century employed:

1 Priest facing the people
2. Communion in the hand
3. Communion under both kinds
4. profane, or folk music.
5. they removed the statues from the Churches
6. They changed the language from Latin to the vernacular.

These things were all condemned by the council of Trent, yet they are all present in the new mass. That is why Cardinal Ottaviani said:

”From the outset, therefore, the new rite was pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. **Since unity of worship has been shattered once and for all, what basis will exist for the unity of the faith which accompanied it and which, we were told, was always to be defended without compromise? **It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose…”

But in that quote the Cardinal was not only speaking of the exterior changes, but of the prayers that had been protestantized.

Cardinal Ottaviani: “At the same time, by abandoning it’s unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own. In place of this are elements which bring the new rite closer to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to Catholicism.” (The Ottaviani Intervention).

I am VERY HOPEFUL that our new Pope will begin the restoration of the Church which has been in a state of deterioration for the past 40 years. Cardinal Ratzinger himseld said: “… I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”

I agree. And I think he will, quietly, take measures to restory the “disintegrated liturgy”. Our media loved John Paul II, but I don’t think they are going to like our new Pope. For that we should be very thankfull.

 

[MrS]

RSiscoe:

You probably do not realize this, but “the spirit of Vatican II” is not the spirit of Catholicism. These are two condradictory spirits, and they are unreconcilable - like fire and water. During the past 40 years of apostacy, the Church has been “reformed” by the spirit of Vatican II. Whether or not this is a “misinterpretation” of the Council is beside the point. That fact is, this false spirit has reeked havoc on the Church. Thus, the Church is no longer recognizeable in many ways, including its new form of worship.

As one who was out of the church from the late 60’s till the early 90’s, I can surely agree with what you say. However, RSiscoe, you are hoping others can see what you do, what I think I do, …and the sad fact is that some can’t or won’t. Let’s us hope and pray that our new Pontiff will be able to clarify much of what has been ambiguous for 40 years. He is the new Pope, choosing a name last used during the Fatima apparitions, and coming to office 40 years after Vatican II… perhaps our 40 years of wandering in the desert are about to end,.

 

[netmilsmom]

Kielbasi:

I don’t think there will be nearly as many changes as folks might think, or that Benedict might like.

The pope can certainly make a statement mandating more Latin masses, but actually purchasing/moving the fixtures in the local churches, actually teaching priests Latin and chanting, actually teaching altar boys on how to serve Latin mass, all of this requires more than just passive cooperation from the bishops and the faithful.

Time and money would have to be allocated to actually accomplish the goal, a papal bull just saying that it will be done by such and such a date wouldn’t look good if it didn’t actually occur when the time came.

A modest amount of change is possible, certainly the pope will make statements as to the desirability of more consistency and traditional practices in the liturgy, but I suspect that their will be few changes in the short to medium term.

I agree with you.
I do think that a Universal Indult is in the future, but slow is the Vatican way.
Perhaps just an EWTN type Holy Mass to start. Throw in the Agnus Dei (which repeats) and we are all introduced to Latin.
What do you think?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

RSiscoe:

You probably do not realize this, but “the spirit of Vatican II” is not the spirit of Catholicism.

I realize this. As “the spirit of Vatican II” has nothing to do with Vatican II.

Try reading the documents.

The Mass also has nothing to do with “the spirit of Vatcian II” and I am confused why you would even bring this up except as a Red Herring.