Pope Benedicts comments on the Pauline Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter ncstevem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spirithound said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it is very clear that he was speaking of the Mass itself. Consider where the quote came from: It was from the preface to the French edition of the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Msgr Klaus Gamber. Before looking at more of what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the preface, let’s consider what Msgr Gamber says in the book about the Subject:

Reform of the Roman Liturgy: "Does the Pope have the authority to change a liturgical rite founded on apostolic tradition and developed over many centuries? … *n the past, the Church hierarchy did not exercise a strong influence on the development of liturgical forms. It simply sanctioned the rite that grew out of local custom, and even the Church practice of officially sanctioning a rite emerged relatively late, only after printed liturgical books became popular.

In the West, this practice began after the Council of Trent; and it is defined in Article 22 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [Sacrosanctum Concilium]. Referring to Canon 1257 of the Codex Iuris Canonici [1917], it says, “The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, with the diocesan bishop (…Therefore, no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority).”

The Council did not elaborate on what the term “supervision of the sacred liturgy” (Sacra Liturgiae moderatio) means.** If we consider past practices and customs, however, the term cannot mean the type of sweeping revisions of the Mass ritual and the alteration of liturgical texts that we are now experiencing**. Rather, we must understand the real meaning in a larger context: Above all, the Council Fathers were intent on preventing every priest from “devising” the liturgical rite “on his own authority”—which, of course, is exactly what is happening today.

Nor can the liturgical reformers derive their authority from Article 25 of the Liturgy Constitution, which says, “The liturgical books are to be revised (recognoscantur) as soon as possible.” …

T]he type of revision of the liturgy of the Mass envisioned by the Council was the Ordo Missae published in 1965. At the very beginning, the decree [of 1965] points out that the revision (nova recensio) of the Order of the Mass is being issued because of the mutationes made to the Council’s Instructions on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [Inter oecumenici].

As recently as May 28,1966, in an official letter written on behalf of the Pope and addressed to the Abbot of Beuron, who had sent to the Pope a copy of the new (post-Council) edition of the Schott-Missal, then Cardinal Secretary of State Cicognani stated, "The singular characteristic and primary importance of this new edition is that it [the revisions of 1965] reflects completely the intent of the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy." The letter made no mention of the fact that a comprehensive revision of this very Missal was already under way.

Only four years had passed since the publication of the new Missal when Pope Paul VI surprised the Catholic world with a new Ordo Missae, dated April 6, 1969 [and promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum”]. The revision made in 1965 did not touch the traditional liturgical rite. In accordance with the mandate of Article 50 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, it had been primarily concerned with removing some later additions to the Order of the Mass.

The publication of the Ordo Missae of 1969, however, created a new liturgical rite [which is exactly what Pope Paul VI said, even if our current Pope says it is a different form of the sate Rite].** In other words, the traditional liturgical rite had not simply been revised as the Council had intended. Rather, it had been completely abolished, and a couple of years later, the traditional liturgical rite was, in fact, forbidden.**

All this leads to the question: Does such a radical reform follow the tradition of the Church? Given the evidence we have presented, one cannot invoke the Council’s decisions to support such an argument. …

The argument could be made that the pope’s authority to introduce a new liturgical rite, that is, to do so without a decision by a council, can be derived from the “full and highest power” (plena et suprema potestas) he has in the Church, as cited by the First Vatican Council, i.e., power over matters quae ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent (“that pertain to the discipline and rule of the Church spread out over all the world”).

However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition.** For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of “discipline and rule of the Church.” **To this we can add that there is not a single document, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional liturgical rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.

continue…*
 
Continuing the quote fro Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church—that is, as Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus). …

As we examine the issue of unlimited papal authority and how it relates to the authority to change the established liturgical rite, … this argument just may be the already established fact that, until Pope Paul VI, there has not been a single pope who introduced the type of fundamental changes in liturgical forms which we are now witnessing. …

Not only is the Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact.

Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone to abolish the traditional liturgical rite; and since, furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy, the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable, to say the least.

Now, with that in mind, let’s consider two quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger: The first is from the preface to the above book, in which he says…

Cardinal Ratzinger: "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 in a manufacturing process – by a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.

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.

Notice how Cardinal Ratzinger speaks of Gamber who, in the very book he is discussing at least implied that Paul VI did not have the authority to create the Novus Ordo. He calls him a “true visionary”, with the “fearlessness of a true witness” who “opposed this falsification” of the liturgy by introducing a new Mass.

With respect to the new Mass he saiys that *“instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place”. * He goes on to say that this fabrication was created as in a manufacturing process. Now, with that in mind read the following words from Cardinal Ratzinger’s book The Spirit of the Liturgy:

Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the [erroneous] impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166)."

Based on all this, it appears to me that our new Pope at least leans in the direction of believing that Paul VI did not have the authority to create the Novus Ordo, and thus that the Novus Ordo is illicit.

And his explanation of the Novus Ordo not being another Rite (but another Form of the same Rite), is exactly contrary to what Pope Paul VI said. I think our current Pope realizes that NO POPE has the authority to create a new Rite of Mass, which is why he is now trying to spin it as being another form of the same Rite, which, as I said, is exactly contrary to what Paul VI said he was attempting.
 
If one wants to honestly know the mind of Pope Benedict, one should go beyond a sound bite that feeds one’s predisposition in a preface of someone else’s book and read what he wrote himself.

Here are some excerpts from The Spirit of the Liturgy, which I had out on loan and just now found. On page 7-8 he referes to the liturgy as a fresco that had been “almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations.”
In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from the earliest beginings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council.
Click to expand...
He describes the benefits and dangers of this and says, " there must be no question of it being covered with whitewash again."
 
In the Chapter most pertinent to this topic, he covers the history of rites in a Christian context. At no time does he indicate the Mass is something manufacted. In fact, he speaks against this and many other abuses some have tried with the Mass. What he state about the Mass is:
Only with the liturgical reform after the Second Vatican Council with its concern to restore the Roman tradition in its purity,did the Gallican inheritence more or less completely disappear. For the first time a radical standardization of the liturgy had been carried out, though in the previous century the surviving rites proper to particular places and religious orders had been increasingly disappearing.
Click to expand...
The only time he spoke of a manufactured Mass is on page 166. In the context of the role of the Pope as guardian of tradition, he said the Mass is not manufacture.

If one wants to know what the Pope has said about liturgy, read it from his own writings.
 
pnewton said:
The only time he spoke of a manufactured Mass is on page 166. In the context of the role of the Pope as guardian of tradition, he said the Mass is not manufacture.
Click to expand...
I see how you’re trying to defend your position, but isn’t this like saying Americans were ONLY attacked on 9/11 so no big deal?
 
ProVobis said:
I see how you’re trying to defend your position, but isn’t this like saying Americans were ONLY attacked on 9/11 so no big deal?
Click to expand...
No, because he does not say that the Mass in use today is manufactured. In the context of other problematic approaches to liturgy, he speaks against approaching it that way. I am not trying to defend my position. I am trying to stick to the topic of the Holy Father’s postition. If I interjected any of my own, I do not see it and it was unintentional.

I only posted the snipets I did because I believe the Holy Father is being misportrayed. It is a false authority fallacy. Likewise, what little I posted lacks sufficient content to judge by. That is why I recommend the book. While it is not gospel, it was close enough to what I understand as to let me see what he is saying and accept the parts I do not understand fully.
 
We know definitively that the pope is all for celebrating the NO with the utmost reverence and awe. He even took a stab at celebrating versus Deum last year. If only he would do it again! But more priests are picking up on this, for instance on EWTN, I have noticed the Mass is said on an altar now with 6 candals, an awesome crucifix, in latin(some), with Gregorian Chant, and best of all, some of their priests(not all but some), have even kept their thumb and forefinger together after the Consecratio. The Mass is beginning to turn around, and we have Benedict to thank for that. Now if he would just turn the Altar around, and for good this time:thumbsup::highprayer::signofcross::highprayer:

i just remembered that my Church even veiled our statues on Palm Sunday. Its been a while since that was done I’m sure.
 
well then God bless your parish pnewton. My parish has never done it and i dont believe that many of the parishes in my area have either.
 
Brian777 said:
well then God bless your parish pnewton. My parish has never done it and i dont believe that many of the parishes in my area have either.
Click to expand...
Well that is one tradition that the parishes need to return to. It hardly makes any sense to leave them out and open when everything else is stripped bare, or do they do that too? We strip everything on Holy Thursday with extreme prejudice. Nothing is left but the bare altar and two chairs. Dead silence occurs from the end of the Tantum Ergo until the first reading the next day.
 
my parish is in great need of learning the value of silence in the church
 
pnewton said:
No, because he does not say that the Mass in use today is manufactured.
Click to expand...
The Mass in use today is either EF (Missal of Pope John XXIII) or OF (Missal of Paul VI). Both are legal and valid and Catholic. No mention of the Novus Ordo in the SP, if I remember correctly.
 
Jacafamala said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think one of the biggest problems are priests and bishops who won’t follow his example.
For instance, not long ago, the American bishops wanted everyone to bow during the Creed when the lines concerning Mary were cited. Everyone, priests and laity, did it for a couple weeks. Now almost no one bows. It is a rare priest I’ve seen who still bows. The Holy Father is setting a great example but I don’t foresee anyone following his example, even if he decrees it.
 
Scott_D said:
I think one of the biggest problems are priests and bishops who won’t follow his example.
For instance, not long ago, the American bishops wanted everyone to bow during the Creed when the lines concerning Mary were cited. Everyone, priests and laity, did it for a couple weeks. Now almost no one bows. It is a rare priest I’ve seen who still bows. The Holy Father is setting a great example but I don’t foresee anyone following his example, even if he decrees it.
Click to expand...
Even if he decrees it? Out of curiosity how do you see things changing then, if not by papal mandate. Perhaps it is the laity who must rise up and demand from our pastros and bishops more traditional and reverent Masses. with the new english translation of the OF Missal, we should be well on the way. Now if they would just start using it…
 
Brian777 said:
… demand from our pastros and bishops more traditional and reverent Masses. with the new english translation of the OF Missal, we should be well on the way.
Click to expand...
All-vernacular Masses, whether reverent or not, will never be traditional.
 
ProVobis said:
All-vernacular Masses, whether reverent or not, will never be traditional.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it will be AS traditional as the all-Latin mass became, the original language of the liturgy being Greek. Also, the Church has permitted the pre-Vatican II Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular in the past. And “traditional” isn’t only the purview of so-called “traditionalists” to define. What the Church lawfully permits in her worship is part of Her tradition.
 
Brian777 said:
Even if he decrees it? Out of curiosity how do you see things changing then, if not by papal mandate. Perhaps it is the laity who must rise up and demand from our pastros and bishops more traditional and reverent Masses. with the new english translation of the OF Missal, we should be well on the way. Now if they would just start using it…
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that the pope shouldn’t mandate anything. You are reading far too much into that statement. What I am saying is that if the pope decreed certain elements of traditional practices, say, women wearing chapel veils, you would see a fair percentage of the laity following the decree, but you would also see widespread rebellion. Also, after having seen a lot a priestly creativity, I am not hopeful that given papal decrees, that his word would be heeded to the letter. The ONLY way that a change would happen is if the laity demands it, as you said. However, that all depends on a lot. There are way too many liberal “Catholics” out there who have a chokehold within parish organization. Fortunately the Tridentine mass is making a comeback, but in my area the closest one is an hour and a half away. Our parish priest, who oversees 8 churches, said we won’t be getting one any time soon and that nobody has even requested to have a Tridentine mass.
 
ProVobis said:
All-vernacular Masses, whether reverent or not, will never be traditional.
Click to expand...
on the contrary, have you ever seen High Mass in the Anglican Use(anglican parishes in communion with Rome)? It is in Elizabethan english but is basically the the Sarum Rite, except for a few variations from the english reformation. Anyway my point is that all vernacular Masses can and will be very traditional if we could just get our priests to say them correctly.

here is a video of the Anglican Use.

adtelevavi.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/videos-of-the-anglican-use-mass/
 
JKirkLVNV said:
On the contrary, it will be AS traditional as the all-Latin mass became, the original language of the liturgy being Greek. Also, the Church has permitted the pre-Vatican II Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular in the past. And “traditional” isn’t only the purview of so-called “traditionalists” to define. What the Church lawfully permits in her worship is part of Her tradition.
Click to expand...
I guess you would know better than I since you’re really going back and I don’t consider myself a traditionalist. But English, I don’t think so. Greek or Aramaic I can buy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top