Pope, in interview, laments 'rigidity' of youth who prefer Latin Mass [CWN]

[2PT3]

I think he was meaning that there are some Catholics who absolutely refuse to attend the NO mass and they berate those (often including the clergy) who prefer the NO mass. Some of the most extreme of them even doubt the validity of the NO mass.

If that is what he meant, then why didn’t he say it? Why didn’t he say “those who insist on attending only the Extraordinary Form” or “those who claim the Novus Ordo is illcit”, or “those who look down upon the Novus Ordo”?

He gives the strong impression that he thinks anyone who favors or attends the Extraordinary Form has deep psychological and spiritual problems. The comments are highly uncharitable and judgmental.

And if you read the context he says that Pope Benedict made the Extraordinary Form licit as an essentially out of pity for those who were clamoring for it. That is just not a fair reading of what Pope Benedict did or his reasons for it. It is either an outright mischaracterization or it is woefully misinformed. And I am no rad-trad. I have only ever attended one Extraordinary Form Mass.

 

[2PT3]

[Asked about the liturgy, Pope Francis insisted the Mass reformed after the Second Vatican Council is here to stay and “to speak of a ‘reform of the reform’ is an error.”

In authorizing regular use of the older Mass, now referred to as the “extraordinary form,” now-retired Pope Benedict XVI was “magnanimous” toward those attached to the old liturgy, he said. “But it is an exception.”

Pope Francis told Father Spadaro he wonders why some young people, who were not raised with the old Latin Mass, nevertheless prefer it.

“And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”]

Wait, who’s insecure?

 

[2PT3]

Let’s get into the way-back machine and go back to 2011. Here’s what was said then.

I suppose Cardinal Koch would be in “error” now for using the term “reform of the reform” which was specifically advanced by Pope Benedict. And, I suppose now it is now the “young” conservatives rather the “progressives” are the “rigid” ones.

We are being whip-sawed by a papacy that is in utter discontinuity with the prior two on many issues, including both the liturgy and communion for the divorced and remarried. What do we have now, a mere political institution where the new party comes in and feels free to try to undo what the prior party put in place?

"Pope Benedict XVI’s easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a “reform of the reform” in liturgy, the Vatican’s top ecumenist said.

The Pope’s long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a “common rite” that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the Pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including “rigid” progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church’s liturgical tradition, he said.

Cardinal Koch made the remarks at a Rome conference on “Summorum Pontificum,” Pope Benedict’s 2007 apostolic letter that offered wider latitude for use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The cardinal’s text was published the same day by L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper."

 

[2PT3]

More from Cardinal Koch, back in 2011. Basically the exact opposite of what Francis is now saying. Let’s not pretend anymore, okay? This papacy is now an utter rejection of the prior one, at least on the issue of the liturgy and the “reform of the reform.” And that makes me really, really sad.

I could see the point if the Pope were specifically critical of those who want to make the EF into the OF or who deny the legitimacy of the NO all together. But he is going further than that. He says that to even discuss a “reform of the reform” is an error.

---

Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II liturgical changes have brought “many positive fruits” but also problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration. The cardinal said it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovators had intentionally gone beyond the council’s stated intentions.

He said this explains why Pope Benedict has introduced a new reform movement, beginning with “Summorum Pontificum.” The aim, he said, is to revisit Vatican II’s teachings in liturgy and strengthen certain elements, including the Christological and sacrificial dimensions of the Mass.

Cardinal Koch said “Summorum Pontificum” is “only the beginning of this new liturgical movement.”

“In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite,” he said.

“However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the Pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the Roman rite can and should enrich each other,” he said.

Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the Pope has emphasized, Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an organic process of growth, he said.

 

[pnewton]

When one sits in such a public position as pope, one must shepherd his flock with care, so as to avoid confusion. Time and time again, Francis has unfortunately said things that are marvelously effective at causing confusion.

The reason I do not believe this are illustrated in this article. The Pope is not writing the press releases and sure isn’t passing on the headlines. I would say rather it is journalists that create the confusion by articles like this. No leader can prevent such things, except by complete silence.

I have been hearing conservatives complain about the MSM for decades. So why can’t the same conservatives see through the same techniques outside of MSNBC?

 

[dans0622]

Let’s get into the way-back machine and go back to 2011. Here’s what was said then. …

Hello,

We don’t need to go that far back. This past summer, Cardinal Sarah said:

Indeed, I can say that when I was received in audience by the Holy Father last April, Pope Francis asked me to study the question of a reform of a reform and of how to enrich the two forms of the Roman rite. ccwatershed.org/blog/2016/jul/7/robert-cardinal-sarah-address-2015-july/

The Pope, in this interview, says

But the Second Vatican Council and Sacrosantum Concilium should carry on as they are. To talk about a ‘reform of the reform’ is a mistake. cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/11/11/francis-warns-rigid-liturgy-confesses-soft-spot-old-ladies/

So, there is indeed some confusion and conflict here.

Dan

 

[dshix]

The reason I do not believe this are illustrated in this article. The Pope is not writing the press releases and sure isn’t passing on the headlines. I would say rather it is journalists that create the confusion by articles like this. No leader can prevent such things, except by complete silence.

I have been hearing conservatives complain about the MSM for decades. So why can’t the same conservatives see through the same techniques outside of MSNBC?

What you say is true, but it doesn’t explain the entire problem. Our previous popes have not allowed themselves to be so frequently and consistently misunderstood.

Either Francis needs to correct these misconceptions, or needs to be more careful with his words. I’m sure he’s trying, but in my opinion, if he is, he’s being quite ineffective.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think he was meaning that there are some Catholics who absolutely refuse to attend the NO mass and they berate those (often including the clergy) who prefer the NO mass. Some of the most extreme of them even doubt the validity of the NO mass.

Good thing we can all speculate as to his real meaning. If BXVI said that about the OF the world would riot!

Maybe, just maybe, the pope means what he says and always has.

 

[Maol_Mhuire]

Pope Francis:

For example, I always try to understand what is behind those individuals who are too young to have lived the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who want it nonetheless.

Hello, Your Holiness.

You don’t know me. I’m a married, 25 year old Roman Catholic, with a newborn son in tow. I was born into a culturally Catholic family and attended Catholic schools when I was younger. I received all the sacraments of initiation in their turn and went to Mass maybe three or four times a year. The catechesis in school was poor at best though thankfully it appears to be worlds apart from what Americans seem to have to suffer through. So as you can imagine I wasn’t particularly observant of my Catholic faith.

That changed when I was in my late teens. I discovered the traditional liturgy of the Church. Celebrated by a diocesan priest—a monsignor no less!—I fell in love with, and was brought back in to the Church by, the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass. My wife was raised entirely with the traditional liturgy and my son has been baptized with the traditional Roman Ritual.

All that attracted me to the traditional liturgy can be summed up rather easily: the clear exposition of doctrine contained in this liturgy and the sheer beauty of it expressed by the traditional tones of Gregorian chant and the inherent reverence that the rubrics demand of the celebrant. I am aware that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite has this as well. But the Ordinary Form suffers from a vast amount of options that make it so that I have rarely assisted at an Ordinary Form that was not a banal, dull, and narcissistic pantomime. Does that mean that they are all like that? No, blessed be God! And I am so incredibly happy for you that you have never been subjected to such a Mass as I have described. But we are not all so blessed as you, Your Holiness.

More importantly Sacrosanctum concilium has not been carried by the Church. To say that the Council has been heard is a clear falsehood. Where is the pride of place that Latin has in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? Where is the Gregorian Chant? Where did the Council call for Mass versus populum? Where did the Council state that Communion was to be received standing and in the hand? Where did the Council call for abolishing altar rails and all forms of traditional piety?

To speak of a Reform of the Reform is an error, Your Holiness, because the Reform itself has not even been carried out! The reason I am attached to the traditional liturgy, Your Holiness, the reason that multiple monastic foundations have adopted the traditional liturgy, the reason that some have even returned to the traditional liturgy, the reason that multiple congregations of religious and non-religious clergy have adopted to the traditional liturgy is because we are insecure. Insecure at the thought of every parish using its own liturgy. Insecure at the thought of losing a musical tradition that stretches back throughout the entirety of Christian history. Insecure at the thought of top-down impositions of banal, on the spot productions of committees.

Your Holiness, you and I at least have one thing in common. We both have souls entrusted to our care. I have an obligation before God to my wife and my child. And I must in conscience do the very best I can for my son, to raise him to lead a holy life, to know, love and serve God. I believe that can be best accomplished immersed in the traditional liturgy of the Church until you yourself assure that the Second Vatican Council is actually heeded.

 

[Convert_in_99]

[Asked about the liturgy, Pope Francis insisted the Mass reformed after the Second Vatican Council is here to stay and “to speak of a ‘reform of the reform’ is an error.”

In authorizing regular use of the older Mass, now referred to as the “extraordinary form,” now-retired Pope Benedict XVI was “magnanimous” toward those attached to the old liturgy, he said. “But it is an exception.”

Pope Francis told Father Spadaro he wonders why some young people, who were not raised with the old Latin Mass, nevertheless prefer it.

“And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”]

Wait, who’s insecure?

Are you insinuating our Holy Father is insecure?

 

[Convert_in_99]

If you all want to keep talking against the pope (and some to the point of disrespect) then do it somewhere else. These forums speak against such behavior and you are making the rest of us look bad. If those not of the faith continue to see argument after argument against the Holy Father’s words and statements, how do you expect to ever hope for their respect, understanding or even eventual conversion?

 

[Maol_Mhuire]

If those not of the faith continue to see argument after argument against the Holy Father’s words and statements, how do you expect to ever hope for their respect, understanding or even eventual conversion?

If those not of the faith continue to see Catholics accepting as sheer fact that 2 + 2 = 5 because the Holy Father said so then how on earth can we expect their respect, understanding or eventual conversion?

The healthy attitude of a Catholic to the Holy Father does not consist in a cult of personality, nor in blindly accepting every word he says as Gospel truth. It is precisely such papolatry that is a stumbling block to our separated brethren.

 

[Wesrock]

He may just be referring to those whose enthusiasm for tradition causes them to disdain the ordinary form. Still, I find it encouraging in general that the younger generation is interested in older liturgies and traditions of the Church.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

No disparaging remarks against Catholic clergy

 

[Convert_in_99]

MODERATOR NOTE

No disparaging remarks against Catholic clergy

Thank you Mr. Bay!

 

[irenaeus1]

Hello, Your Holiness.

You don’t know me. I’m a married, 25 year old Roman Catholic, with a newborn son in tow. I was born into a culturally Catholic family and attended Catholic schools when I was younger. I received all the sacraments of initiation in their turn and went to Mass maybe three or four times a year. The catechesis in school was poor at best though thankfully it appears to be worlds apart from what Americans seem to have to suffer through. So as you can imagine I wasn’t particularly observant of my Catholic faith.

That changed when I was in my late teens. I discovered the traditional liturgy of the Church. Celebrated by a diocesan priest—a monsignor no less!—I fell in love with, and was brought back in to the Church by, the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass. My wife was raised entirely with the traditional liturgy and my son has been baptized with the traditional Roman Ritual.

All that attracted me to the traditional liturgy can be summed up rather easily: the clear exposition of doctrine contained in this liturgy and the sheer beauty of it expressed by the traditional tones of Gregorian chant and the inherent reverence that the rubrics demand of the celebrant. I am aware that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite has this as well. But the Ordinary Form suffers from a vast amount of options that make it so that I have rarely assisted at an Ordinary Form that was not a banal, dull, and narcissistic pantomime. Does that mean that they are all like that? No, blessed be God! And I am so incredibly happy for you that you have never been subjected to such a Mass as I have described. But we are not all so blessed as you, Your Holiness.

More importantly Sacrosanctum concilium has not been carried by the Church. To say that the Council has been heard is a clear falsehood. Where is the pride of place that Latin has in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? Where is the Gregorian Chant? Where did the Council call for Mass versus populum? Where did the Council state that Communion was to be received standing and in the hand? Where did the Council call for abolishing altar rails and all forms of traditional piety?

To speak of a Reform of the Reform is an error, Your Holiness, because the Reform itself has not even been carried out! The reason I am attached to the traditional liturgy, Your Holiness, the reason that multiple monastic foundations have adopted the traditional liturgy, the reason that some have even returned to the traditional liturgy, the reason that multiple congregations of religious and non-religious clergy have adopted to the traditional liturgy is because we are insecure. Insecure at the thought of every parish using its own liturgy. Insecure at the thought of losing a musical tradition that stretches back throughout the entirety of Christian history. Insecure at the thought of top-down impositions of banal, on the spot productions of committees.

Your Holiness, you and I at least have one thing in common. We both have souls entrusted to our care. I have an obligation before God to my wife and my child. And I must in conscience do the very best I can for my son, to raise him to lead a holy life, to know, love and serve God. I believe that can be best accomplished immersed in the traditional liturgy of the Church until you yourself assure that the Second Vatican Council is actually heeded.

Perhaps you should send this to the Holy Father as this may help him to understand that which he seeks - namely, “what is behind” some of those young people.

What I always wonder and try to understand is what is behind those individuals who are older and were raised and called to the priesthood during the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who don’t want it nonetheless.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As I look back across the decades of my priesthood since the Council, I could not agree more with the Pope’s assessment…on each point articulated.

We are indeed blessed that, of the College, he was the one chosen as Vicar of Christ.

 

[Brendan]

but does he mean that folk refuse to attend any other mass as then that is rigidity? and yes that does happen, here at least

But is that any less rigid than someone who prefers the Ordinary Form and would not consider attending the Extraordinary Form?

 

[PatrickC]

I’d love to know what he thinks of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom. If he’s not a fan of the old Latin mass how could he even tolerate something older and longer? I did see him at a liturgy at the Ecumenical Patriarchate and he looked about as bored to fulfill an obligation as I probably did at my high school graduation.

 

[Randolph]

Hello, Your Holiness.

You don’t know me. I’m a married, 25 year old Roman Catholic, with a newborn son in tow. I was born into a culturally Catholic family and attended Catholic schools when I was younger. I received all the sacraments of initiation in their turn and went to Mass maybe three or four times a year. The catechesis in school was poor at best though thankfully it appears to be worlds apart from what Americans seem to have to suffer through. So as you can imagine I wasn’t particularly observant of my Catholic faith.

That changed when I was in my late teens. I discovered the traditional liturgy of the Church. Celebrated by a diocesan priest—a monsignor no less!—I fell in love with, and was brought back in to the Church by, the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass. My wife was raised entirely with the traditional liturgy and my son has been baptized with the traditional Roman Ritual.

All that attracted me to the traditional liturgy can be summed up rather easily: the clear exposition of doctrine contained in this liturgy and the sheer beauty of it expressed by the traditional tones of Gregorian chant and the inherent reverence that the rubrics demand of the celebrant. I am aware that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite has this as well. But the Ordinary Form suffers from a vast amount of options that make it so that I have rarely assisted at an Ordinary Form that was not a banal, dull, and narcissistic pantomime. Does that mean that they are all like that? No, blessed be God! And I am so incredibly happy for you that you have never been subjected to such a Mass as I have described. But we are not all so blessed as you, Your Holiness.

More importantly Sacrosanctum concilium has not been carried by the Church. To say that the Council has been heard is a clear falsehood. Where is the pride of place that Latin has in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? Where is the Gregorian Chant? Where did the Council call for Mass versus populum? Where did the Council state that Communion was to be received standing and in the hand? Where did the Council call for abolishing altar rails and all forms of traditional piety?

To speak of a Reform of the Reform is an error, Your Holiness, because the Reform itself has not even been carried out! The reason I am attached to the traditional liturgy, Your Holiness, the reason that multiple monastic foundations have adopted the traditional liturgy, the reason that some have even returned to the traditional liturgy, the reason that multiple congregations of religious and non-religious clergy have adopted to the traditional liturgy is because we are insecure. Insecure at the thought of every parish using its own liturgy. Insecure at the thought of losing a musical tradition that stretches back throughout the entirety of Christian history. Insecure at the thought of top-down impositions of banal, on the spot productions of committees.

Your Holiness, you and I at least have one thing in common. We both have souls entrusted to our care. I have an obligation before God to my wife and my child. And I must in conscience do the very best I can for my son, to raise him to lead a holy life, to know, love and serve God. I believe that can be best accomplished immersed in the traditional liturgy of the Church until you yourself assure that the Second Vatican Council is actually heeded.

My parents raised their children in a loving, faithful catholic household. We played and prayed together. We went to Mass, observed our obligations, and celebrated receiving our Sacraments together. Our minds and hearts were never far away from the Church. Our parents made sure that we were close to the nuns and priests so that we learned from them and followed their examples. Looking back, we were so blessed for having great parents, siblings, the nuns and the priests who loved and watched over us.

Then, simply by chance, on that one Sunday when I was 26, my friend and I were running late for Mass. We decided to check out a Latin Mass in the city (We did not know at the time that Mass was permitted by the local bishop as an Indult). At the end of Mass, my own curiosity and sense of spirituality heightened. What also stood out to me were the respect and reverence shown by all throughout the Mass. There was no doubt that Christ was worshiped and adored. The grace I received… I remembered being on knees giving thanks to God for granting me His new gift. In the years to follow, I committed myself to learning Latin, the Tridentine Mass itself, to chant and to serve the Mass. My spiritual life has definitely changed from that fateful Sunday.

I am a child of all Church councils. Vatican II did not forbide nor eliminate the Tridentine Mass, the Latin tradition or Latin itself. There is obsolutely nothing wrong with having the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass side by side. The Tridentine Mass is full of beautiful spiritual richness and symbolism. All of which guides us toward piety and toward Christ. Every word, movement, guesture from the priest, servers and the laity have meaning. Similarly, the Novus Ordo was approved by the pope and the Church and it also has its own richness and meaning.

I myself attend both forms of the Mass because the Church approved them. It is therefore only appropriate that all Catholics must respect and accept them.

Having said all these things, I will go to Confession soon to get rid of my own uncharitable thoughts.