Paul VI saw liturgical abuse as "smoke of Satan"

[Walking_Home]

[The full interview has been translated by Father John Zulsdorf on his What Does the Prayer Really Say blog.]
wdtprs.com/blog/2008/05/petrus-amazing-interview-with-card-noe-paul-vis-smoke-of-satan-remark-concerned-liturgy

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58473

Rome, May. 16, 2008 (CWNews.com) - When Pope Paul VI spoke about the “smoke of Satan” entering the Catholic Church, he was referring to liturgical abuses, according to the prelate who served as his master of ceremonies.

Cardinal Virgilio Noe, the chief Vatican liturgist during the pontificate of Paul VI, spoke candidly about the late Pope’s concerns in an interview with the Roman Petrus web site. The Italian prelate-- who was also the Vatican’s top liturgist under Pope John Paul I and the early years of the pontificate of John Paul II-- is now retired, and at the age of 86 his health is failing. In his interview with Petrus he concentrated primarily on his years serving Pope Paul VI.

Pope Paul accepted the liturgical reforms after Vatican II “with pleasure,” Cardinal Noe said. He added that Paul VI was not be nature a sad man, but “he was saddened by the fact of having been left alone by the Roman Curia.” Regarding the late Pope’s famous remark about the “smoke of Satan,” Cardinal Noe said that he knew what Paul VI intended by that statement. In that denunciation, he said, the Pope “meant to include all those priests or bishops and cardinals who didn’t render worship to the Lord by celebrating badly Holy Mass because of an errant interpretation of the implementation of the Second Vatican Council. He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dross in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. So, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.”

 

[benedictgal]

[The full interview has been translated by Father John Zulsdorf on his What Does the Prayer Really Say blog.]
wdtprs.com/blog/2008/05/petrus-amazing-interview-with-card-noe-paul-vis-smoke-of-satan-remark-concerned-liturgy

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58473

Rome, May. 16, 2008 (CWNews.com) - When Pope Paul VI spoke about the “smoke of Satan” entering the Catholic Church, he was referring to liturgical abuses, according to the prelate who served as his master of ceremonies.

Cardinal Virgilio Noe, the chief Vatican liturgist during the pontificate of Paul VI, spoke candidly about the late Pope’s concerns in an interview with the Roman Petrus web site. The Italian prelate-- who was also the Vatican’s top liturgist under Pope John Paul I and the early years of the pontificate of John Paul II-- is now retired, and at the age of 86 his health is failing. In his interview with Petrus he concentrated primarily on his years serving Pope Paul VI.

Pope Paul accepted the liturgical reforms after Vatican II “with pleasure,” Cardinal Noe said. He added that Paul VI was not be nature a sad man, but “he was saddened by the fact of having been left alone by the Roman Curia.” Regarding the late Pope’s famous remark about the “smoke of Satan,” Cardinal Noe said that he knew what Paul VI intended by that statement. In that denunciation, he said, the Pope “meant to include all those priests or bishops and cardinals who didn’t render worship to the Lord by celebrating badly Holy Mass because of an errant interpretation of the implementation of the Second Vatican Council. He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dross in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. So, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.”

Unfortunately, we’re going to need a huge fan and a massive fire extinguisher to get rid of the smoke of Satan. Pope Benedict and Cardinal Arinze are doing what they can; however, there are many people who have inhaled too deeply from the alleged spirit of Vatican II and hardly know what the documents actually said.

The problem was that there was no restraint in the days immediately after the Council. It turned into some sort of free fall into the banal. This is something that Pope Benedict has lamented in his books and in his pre-Papal addresses. But, he can’t do this by himself. Those of us who care deeply about the liturgy need to take the battle to our dioceses and our parishes. It is our right, after all, to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in the manner prescribed by the Church.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

It is very possible that the smoke of Satan was/is the break that some Traditionalists made while rejecting the changes of VII rather than the currently popular interpretation.

Since it is not a direct quote and is not given to us in context we will never know.

 

[Joysong]

Another point of view:

1. It is thus clear–if the reportage of what Paul VI said is even remotely right, that he was not claiming that there were Satanists in the Vatican (as some have claimed), nor is he linking the “smoke of Satan” with the Second Vatican Council itself or the liturgical reforms that followed it or anything like that. He perceives the work of the Council as a good thing that has been thwarted–or partially thwarted–by the social crisis that was breaking out in the developed world at this time. In other words, he’s responding to the cultural crisis of the late 1960s and early 1970s and its impact on the Church using a poetic image and attributing it (rightly) to the work of the devil, but he is not making the kind of sensationalistic claims that some have used to interpret this phrase.

People who have been claiming the latter need to get their tin foil hats adjusted properly or go back on their meds.

 

[LRThunder]

It is very possible that the smoke of Satan was/is the break that some Traditionalists made while rejecting the changes of VII rather than the currently popular interpretation.

Since it is not a direct quote and is not given to us in context we will never know.

Those traditionalists that reject VII are too few and far between to have that kind of effect. And I would question whether they were really traditionalists since to be Catholic is to be obedient to authority.

That’s not to say there weren’t those who weren’t happy with what was going on, but not being happy doesn’t mean rejecting Vatican II.

And even Vatican II did not call for the elimination of Latin or sacred music. In fact, the current Mass didn’t come into being until AFTER the Second Vatican Council was concluded.

 

[LRThunder]

Another point of view:

Was there any really need to insult those who had an opinion? Not very charitable.

 

[Joysong]

Was there any really need to insult those who had an opinion? Not very charitable.

I’m assuming you are referring to the bolded paragraph? I furnished the link to the quote; however, the opinion is not mine. You may complain, if you wish, to the author at JimmyAkin.org.

Father makes this observation in the link provided by the OP, which casts a shadow on the credibility of the Cardinal:

Still, while I take what His Eminence says about Paul VI cvm grano salis, ** I was very interested to read his high praise of Pope Benedict, whom he respects for his liturgical style.

Card. Noè wasn’t a real fan of the Polish Pope’s style, for sure, and there was some tension there. As a matter of fact Noè was just a little impatient and bossy with him, who wasn’t all that interested in the finer points of liturgy.

 

[Freshman88]

Another point of view:

There’s what Jimmy Akin says… and then there’s this man, a cardinal, who knew the Pope personally and worked with him daily.

Now what was that about Tinfoil hats, Mr. Akin?

 

[LRThunder]

I’m assuming you are referring to the bolded paragraph? I furnished the link to the quote; however, the opinion is not mine. You may complain, if you wish, to the author at JimmyAkin.org.

Sorry, my mistake.

 

[Joysong]

Freshman88,

I edited my post #7 to add a statement from Father Zuhlsdorf, which puts the entire statement of the Cardinal into shadow.

Did you read the commentary from Mr. Akin? I believe there is merit to the following paragraphs, which he concluded from the original Italian text, also linked in his article.

Instead, it’s a kind of narrative summary of what he said, with occasional direct quotations attributed to him. I’ve never seen this way of presenting a papal homily before, but perhaps it was the way they did it back in the early 1970s. It’s unfortunate, from my perspective, because the narrative summary format introduces a new layer of ambiguity into the document. If we don’t have the pope’s exact words, but someone’s narrative re-telling of them, or if we can’t tell precisely when we have the pope’s exact words and when we don’t, it makes it that much harder to determine exactly what the pope meant.

The phrase “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God” is, apparently, directly attributed to Paul VI, but it’s embedded in a big narrative block that narrates what he said in this part of the homily, but we don’t have–or can’t know that we have–his exact words. This means that there must remain a question mark over the correct interpretation of this phrase.

IMO, there are presently, and have been since 2006 when this subject was addressed by Mr. Akin, a lot of traditionalists and conservatives who undermine the Church by consistently instilling doubt with the faithful. I have seen much worse – I won’t go into it here. Their comments, per se, are not conducive to creating the type of liturgy that they espouse. Rather, these remarks promote discord and harm the innocent who are thus persuaded that the Church is going to hell in a handbasket.

The Bishops and clergy who are entrusted with the mysteries of our faith are moved more by our prayers and sacrifices on their behalf than by complaints and allegations of abuse. May we pray that God bestows on all of us a deep sense of piety, a most needed virtue in our day, without which, liturgies may be correct and flawless to a T, but as God lamented in scripture, “Their hearts are far from Me!”

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please remember, everyone, that denigrating any rite of the Catholic Church is not allowed on CAF. Thank you.

 

[benedictgal]

There needs to be a careful distinction here. No one is denying the OF of the Mass. That has never been my opinion. What is at the heart of this discussion is what has happened to the OF since the days after the Council. What is bemoaned here is the free-form fall into the banal where an anything goes attitude took hold of many people and that, in effect, is what caused all of the abuses to come out in full force.

The fact that very little attention was paid to what the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, Musica Sacram and all of the other regulatory documents issued by the Holy See is what what is most troubling, not the Rite, itself.

This, in fact, is what Pope Benedict has said many times as Cardinal Ratzinger. Unfortunately, when the OF was promulgated, the abuses popped up like weeds. Remember what Jesus said in his second parable about the sower. The landowner ordered his hired hands to sow wheat. In the middle of the night, the enemy came in and sowed weeds along with the wheat. When the hired hands found out, they wanted to destroy the crop. The landowner told them to wait until harvest, when both the weeds and the wheat would pop up together. The wheat was to be stored in the barns while the weeds were to be burnt.

The OF is the wheat; the abuses and all of the other horrid and banal stuff that comes along with it are the weeds. Pope Benedict is trying to get the weeds out now that it’s harvest time.

 

[Joysong]

I agree with your point, Benedictgal … in part. What is important to note in the parable is that the hired hands were told to leave the weeds alone, and not attempt to destroy them, lest they also destroy the good crop. It is very difficult to distinguish the two types of vegetation to the naked eye. Here’s the picture.

Your point that Pope Benedict is now at work is well taken, and I would like to add that it is his office as Supreme Shepherd together with his clergy that should commence the harvesting … not us. One can ignorantly or innocently mistake the good and call it evil, depending on many finite human circumstances.

When the laity take the matter into their hands and attempt to root out what they perceive as wrong, rather than leave the work to those appointed by their vocation, they may err, due to very limited training at identifying the ‘weed.’ This was at the heart of the strong mandate from Christ to His apostles.

I could fill this page with notions that circulate as real abuses, some of which may be true, and others which are just the personal preference of those who THINK they are abuses. These latter are the ones who do irreparable harm because they feel it is incombent upon them to sound the battle alarm and root up the weeds.

As an aside, I hope you remember that VII gave the clergy permission for a limited time to ‘experiment,’ if that is the word to describe it? They were not disobedient or evil in their intent, as some might imply. It did go further than the popes had envisioned, and we trust in the Holy Spirit to bring the pendulum back into its proper realm.

Meanwhile, I pray we might consider well the message of the parable and let those who are entrusted with this sacred duty to harvest, complete their proper work. Let’s pray and support them.

 

[benedictgal]

Inasmuch as there may have been a brief (and the key word here is brief) time for experimentation, that has now long sinced passed (or, it should have). Cardinal Arinze is certainly correct when he notes that:

It is to be remembered that the Eucharistic sacrifice, and indeed the sacred liturgy as a whole, are not something that we make or invent, or put together on our own. They are gifts that we receive, keep, treasure, celebrate and for which we are grateful.

It must be lamented — says Pope John Paul II — that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reforms, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many.8

No doubt a merely external and formal carrying out of rites without internal unity of heart and mind should be rejected. But it is quite another matter when each celebrating priest or local community presumes to have the right to create or invent words and gestures in the sacred liturgy. Liturgical norms, properly understood and observed, help to save the Church from such damage and see that God is at the center of our worship.

Unfortunately, it remains a source of suffering for the Church even today. Now, bear in mind that both the Servant of God, John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI were at the Second Vatican Council (as Archbishop Wojtyla and theologian Fr. Joseph Ratzinger). These two experienced, first-hand, the painful years after the Council when this experimentation pretty much turned into Dr. Frankenstein’s lab. Again, it is not the Rite itself that is bad; it is the free form experimentation in creativity that ran amok and let the stench of the enemy waft into the process.

Definite harm has been inflicted on the Church by non-observance of liturgical norms and this also should be noted. In particular, liturgical abuses tend to promote desacralization. Holy Scripture is severe against people who ignore liturgical norms.

In this last sentence, Cardinal Arinze is referencing to what happened to Aaron’s sons, who, have the unique and unfortunate distinction of committing Scripture’s first example of liturgical abuse.

Now, when Yahweh set forth the norms, rubrics and rituals for the cultic, sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel, he didn’t give them time for experimentation. They had to perform the rites exactly as the Lord dictated them. The Father did not give them any wiggle room. Consequently, when Ancient Israel failed to celebrate the liturgical rites as prescribed by God, things went horribly bad (with some fatal results–look at what happened to the sons of Aaron, as well as the priest Dathan and his family).

Cardinal Arinze also makes one final statement that, I believe, sums up the importance of following the rubrics of the Church:

It comes therefore as no surprise that the Second Vatican Council insists that

regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop, and also various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established. ***Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.12 ***

And

***The liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated.13 ***

A necessary conclusion is that there have to be norms to guide the liturgical celebration. ***Anyone who challenges this principle is really questioning the nature of the Church. ***

Opening the door to experimentation certainly opened the floodgates really wide to the notion that one could do with the Mass as they wanted, which is completely against the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy.

 

[Joysong]

These two experienced, first-hand, the painful years after the Council when this experimentation pretty much turned into Dr. Frankenstein’s lab. Again, it is not the Rite itself that is bad; it is the free form experimentation in creativity that ran amok and let the stench of the enemy waft into the process.

When your harangue about the Bride of Christ and her ministers becomes the topic of conversation, it is time for me to leave and weep. I was hoping to speak heart-to-heart with a person, and instead I get the talking document library – again.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Another point of view:

Other views are always welcome. Insults are not.

God Bless

 

[Joysong]

Kathleen,

This was clarified here earlier in the thread. The difficulty arises when one comes late to the thread and doesn’t read all the posts.

It was not my point of view, but CAF apologist Jimmy Akin’s. I suspect he used strong language that appears to be insulting, due to the exasperation he must have felt from the large number of people who attempted to attribute Pope Paul’s words to VII and/or the new liturgy. He devoted a specific article addressing the correct application of the Pope’s words.

And here we are, two years later, finding that some still want to apply them in a light that just is not true, as I understand it.
If anyone has a problem with my presenting this second opinion, I think Mr. Akin is well able to reply by email and clarify it for them further.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Kathleen,

This was clarified here earlier in the thread. The difficulty arises when one comes late to the thread and doesn’t read all the posts. I read all the posts.

It was not my point of view, but CAF apologist Jimmy Akin’s. I suspect he used strong language that appears to be insulting, due to the exasperation he must have felt from the large number of people who attempted to attribute Pope Paul’s words to VII and/or the new liturgy. He devoted a specific article addressing the correct application of the Pope’s words.

And here we are, two years later, finding that some still want to apply them in a light that just is not true, as I understand it.
If anyone has a problem with my presenting this second opinion, I think Mr. Akin is well able to reply by email and clarify it for them further.

The comment of insults was for the words in bold type:

**

People who have been claiming the latter need to get their tin foil hats adjusted properly or go back on their meds.

**

No matter whom the remark was from it is inappropriate.

 

[Joysong]

The bold type was from Jimmy Akin’s article and are his words. Did you not read the link I gave? If it bothers you, you may email him at JimmyAkin.org. I believe he had his reasons for the remark, as I stated, but which are only my opinion.