Pope Benedicts comments on the Pauline Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter ncstevem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

ncstevem

Guest
J.A.Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our [20th] century, had defined liturgy in his time as a “liturgy fruit of a development”, as it was understood in the West, represented mostly by historical research; probably also contrasting with the Eastern notion which does not view historical evolution and growth in the liturgy, but only the reflection of the eternal liturgy, whose light, throughout the sacred unfolding, enlightens our ever-changing time with its unchanging beauty and grandeur.

Both concepts are legitimate and are not irreconcilable.

What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication began. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced – as if in a technical production – by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.

Gamber, with the vigilance of a true visionary and with the fearlessness of a true witness, opposed this falsification and tirelessly taught us the living fullness of a true liturgy, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge of the sources. As a man who knew and who loved history, he showed us the multiple forms of the evolution and of the path of the liturgy; as a man who saw history from the inside, he saw in this development and in the fruit of this development the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, which is not the object of our action, but which may marvelously continue to blossom and to ripen, if we join its mystery intimately.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Preface to the French edition of K. Gamber’s
Die Reform der römischen Liturgie: Vorgeschichte und Problematik
 
The Tridentine Mass evolved slowly, organically over hundreds of years. The NO Mass was scripted by Bugnini and six Protestant ‘observers’ and thrust upon us April 1969. Forty years later, the modern NO Mass resembles a Lutheran or Anglican service more than our true and proper heritage. The results speak for themselves - a Church in decline.
 
Ockham said:
The Tridentine Mass evolved slowly, organically over hundreds of years. The NO Mass was scripted by Bugnini and six Protestant ‘observers’ and thrust upon us April 1969. Forty years later, the modern NO Mass resembles a Lutheran or Anglican service more than our true and proper heritage. The results speak for themselves - a Church in decline.
Click to expand...
Depending on the Anglican church you visit, you will find a much more reverent and traditional service. (Please note, I am aware of the clown masses and various abuses in the Anglican communion. It all depends on the individual congregation and priest.)

Paul
 
T700 said:
Depending on the Anglican church you visit, you will find a much more reverent and traditional service. (Please note, I am aware of the clown masses and various abuses in the Anglican communion. It all depends on the individual congregation and priest.)

Paul
Click to expand...
As an Anglican convert, I have been quite disappointed with the liturgy in the Catholic Church as there was often much more reverence and “mystery” in many Anglican services.
 
You can really see how the Holy Father is reforming the Liturgy in many ways. Slowly pulling the New Mass more in line with the old. If you watch the Papal Masses aired over EWTN, you can see it. Did anyone watch the Palm Sunday Mass this morning? So many parts were said in Latin, even the Credo. In addition the Holy Father distributes Holy Commuion to kneeling comunicants.
 
brigid12 said:
As an Anglican convert, I have been quite disappointed with the liturgy in the Catholic Church as there was often much more reverence and “mystery” in many Anglican services.
Click to expand...
Attend the EF, and you’ll see reverence. 😉
 
I’m all with Jacafamala. The papal Masses of pope Benedict XVI are the most beautiful Masses I know, and are a proof that there is nothing wrong with the current missal whatsoever. The only problem is that not every priest in the world really puts their effort into celebrating it as lovingly, worthily and faithfully as the could (and should).

From what I have heard from old priests who were ordained before Vatican II and read (for example in “Reforming the liturgy” by John F. Baldovin), unworthily celebrated Masses wasn’t uncommon at that time either. As long as everything was done according to the rubrics, God’s grace was expected to work “automatically”. It didn’t matter if the congregation knew what was going on or not, as long as the priest pronounced the latin words correctly. Whether the priests themselves always really understood everything, I would like to be unsaid. Some just tried to finish the Mass as fast as possible - I’ve heard horror stories about daily Masses done in under 15 minutes.

Today, the only priests who choose to celebrate the EF are those who have a special interest in the liturgy, and consequently, unworthily EF Masses today virtually doesn’t exist. But if those priests celebrating the Mass unworthily would all have to celebrate the EF (like the case was before Vatican II), you would probably see a lot of unworthily celebrated EF Masses today too.

By the way, the quote above is not by pope Benedict, but by cardinal Ratzinger. There is a huge difference between things you say as a cardinal and as a pope. As a pope, Benedict XVI has said the following about the liturgical reform in Sacramentum Caritatis:
  1. If we consider the bimillenary history of God’s Church, guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, we can gratefully admire the orderly development of the ritual forms in which we commemorate the event of our salvation. From the varied forms of the early centuries, still resplendent in the rites of the Ancient Churches of the East, up to the spread of the Roman rite; from the clear indications of the Council of Trent and the Missal of Saint Pius V to the liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council: in every age of the Church’s history the eucharistic celebration, as the source and summit of her life and mission, shines forth in the liturgical rite in all its richness and variety.
Click to expand...
And in his letter to the bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum:
The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. (…)
Click to expand...
Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
Click to expand...
(My emphasies)
 
Ahlman said:
By the way, the quote above is not by pope Benedict, but by cardinal Ratzinger. There is a huge difference between things you say as a cardinal and as a pope.
Click to expand...
Why are the words of a Cardinal unimportant? Or any archbishop, for that matter? What they say or write is at the risk of being excommunicated so I wouldn’t ignore their words, just because they don’t suit your agenda. Quod scripsit, scripsit.
 
Actually, what Pope Benedict said regarding the “Pauline Mass” was this:

Regarding the OF and the EF: “It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”

AND: "…the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal."

AND: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church�s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
From the Explanatory Letter issued with Summorum Pontificum, by Pope Benedict XVI.
 
It makes no difference in which way the mass is celebrated…the important thing is that there is NO CHANGE in the way the Divine Eucharist is presented (offered). THAT is the
important part of the mass, whether NO or EF, or otherwise.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Eleichem
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Actually, what Pope Benedict said regarding the “Pauline Mass” was this:

Regarding the OF and the EF: “It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”

AND: "…the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal."

AND: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church�s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
From the Explanatory Letter issued with Summorum Pontificum, by Pope Benedict XVI.
Click to expand...
Sort of like the Episcopal Church and the two fold Book of Common Prayer. High Church (EF), Broad Church (OF), and Low Church (Neocatecumical or Charismatic Mass aka OF). Something doesn’t seem just right in Rome!. We have to please everyone.
 
ncstevem said:
…**What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. **
Click to expand...
I don’t believe Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to the “Pauline Mass,” as the topic implies, but is referring to the liturgical free-for-all which occurred after Vatican II, as distinct from the legitimate promulgation of the Roman Missal.
 
The NO Mass was scripted by Bugnini and six Protestant ‘observers’ and thrust upon us April 1969
Click to expand...
.

This is a myth that has been circulating for years and is not true. The decline in church attendance has many causes to numerous to address here. Yes the mass changes are a part but not the main cause.

What exactly id “new”? An increase in the amount of scripture read? The prayers of the faithful? The procession of gifts at offertory? More than one eucharistic prayer? The sign of peace? These are all very ancient parts of the mass. The OF can be just as beautiful and reverent as the EF mass. All it takes is for the rubrics to be followed.

I would sugggest to anyone who has a desire to learn about the development of the mass to read “A Short History of the Western Liturgy” by Klauser. It’s written well without all the heavy acedemic stuff. Read it and I think you will have a different perspective on this concept of organic development. If your up for the challenge the read Jumgman…2 volumes!
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
I don’t believe Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to the “Pauline Mass,” as the topic implies, but is referring to the liturgical free-for-all which occurred after Vatican II, as distinct from the legitimate promulgation of the Roman Missal.
Click to expand...
Whether or not it’s what Cardinal Ratzinger referring to, he’s certainly committed to fixing it.
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
I don’t believe Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to the “Pauline Mass,” as the topic implies, but is referring to the liturgical free-for-all which occurred after Vatican II, as distinct from the legitimate promulgation of the Roman Missal.
Click to expand...
Though, given the number of churches that follow the original “intentions” if you will, the distinction is more or less unnecessary.
 
Extempore said:
Though, given the number of churches that follow the original “intentions” if you will, the distinction is more or less unnecessary.
Click to expand...
No, the distinction is necessary. If he was speaking of the Pauline Mass, then it needs to be scrapped. If he was speaking of the way it’s often celebrated, then a whole bunch of priests need to clean up their act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top