Will Pope Benedict reform the liturgy?

[mcliffor]

Orionthehunter:

I would be very disappointed if Pope Benedict didn’t have a single change of heart or idea from his Pre-Pope days. One of the promises of the Church is that the chrism of being Pope changes one and brings them in greater communion with the Holy Spirit. If Pope Benedict was exactly the same person as Joseph Ratzinger, the chrism would be symbolic rather than substantive.

Personally, I will trust Pope Benedict to do his best to discern the will of the Holy Spirit and discern what needs to be changed or not changed. I will accept equally what he does and doesn’t do regarding the liturgy as I’m not graced by the chrism of the See of Rome.

Also, I trust that the Holy Spirit will work even among and through those who don’t understand or support any change or non-change made by Pope Benedict.

I think people in this thread have been careful distinguish between Ratzinger as Cardinal and Pope. I would hesitate to use and expression like “change of heart,” though, as if his views on the liturgy were somehow uncompassionate or stubborn. I also think that what Ratzinger said about the liturgy has to do with his respect for ALL aspects of pious tradition and the belief that not everything that evolved in the liturgy after the early Church had more to do with power politics than grace.

Like people have already said, he can’t do anything without going through a maze of obstacles. Even the slightest change I think would be met with resistance, and a full scale return to an organically developed Roman Rite doesn’t have it’s place in the Church right now. The Church is too weak to do something which might upset the faithful.

 

[mcliffor]

bear06:

…and your friend new JPII well? So many people can read so many minds. Wish I had that gift. ~sigh.

No, but I think it was Cardinal Reglali who described it to him this way one day after mass in the sacristy, but don’t quote me on that, cause I’m not sure. Either way, you don’t need to know the pope to figure stuff like this out. He was always in to Church politics.

Also, he, like everyone else I know, has a great deal of respect for JPII. I don’t meant to make him sound like a weak person. Anyone who can fight Commies the way he did has to be a good at administration and politics!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mcliffor:

I know there are other photos, but the public wants to remember him as a man of the people and not for his condemnation of heresy.* I think he was more concerned with presenting himself as a man of the people than other popes in the past were.* Do a google image search for JPII, and you might see what I’m talking about. I almost think I detect an extreme ultra-montism here, though I hope I’m mistaken. Popes are men of the people, for example, Pope Pius X, born into a poor, devout family, not to mention Peter, not to mention at least one slave who became pope. As per our conversation re: papal coronations, this is precisely one reason not to revert to the older practice. The Pope isn’t the Dalai Lama. I wouldn’t presume to run and hug the pope, but if he doesn’t care that someone does, then it’s none of my business.
Sure, JPII didn’t mind being hugged or being the center of a pep rally of 1,000,000 young people, but some people I’m sure, recognizing the pope’s great authority and service to the Church, would find it innapropriate to greet him as you would a relative. A more appropriate gesture for the pope, or any prelate, would be a genuflection and a kiss of the ring. That is why this action is indulgenced. I would hope that if that girl saw St. Peter she wouldn’t hug him that way, but then again, who knows.

Somehow I doubt he would have thought much of it…unless of course you imagine that the protocol of kissing the papal ring (which I would certainly do) was already in practice at that particular time? Do you think Peter had a ring? I doubt he even had a crozier, why would a fisherman need a shepherd’s crook?

 

[Orionthehunter]

mcliffor:

I think people in this thread have been careful distinguish between Ratzinger as Cardinal and Pope. I would hesitate to use and expression like “change of heart,” though, as if his views on the liturgy were somehow uncompassionate or stubborn. I also think that what Ratzinger said about the liturgy has to do with his respect for ALL aspects of pious tradition and the belief that not everything that evolved in the liturgy after the early Church had more to do with power politics than grace.

Like people have already said, he can’t do anything without going through a maze of obstacles. Even the slightest change I think would be met with resistance, and a full scale return to an organically developed Roman Rite doesn’t have it’s place in the Church right now. The Church is too weak to do something which might upset the faithful.

My use of “change of heart” was short-hand for a more all-encompassing “new greater Wisdom”. Sorry for the confusion.

Additionally, in his previous role, he was freer to speak regarding his personal preference. Now, when he speaks he will be more circumspect such that his personal preference doesn’t lead the faithful to interpret that his preferences are necessarily the “mind of the Church.”

This being said, I do believe that the Pope’s initial utterances and appointments do indicate that there will be emphasis on the liturgy. To the extent there is “obstacles” or “resistance”, it will be mostly a function of how effectively he accompanies the changes with catechesis.

Regarding what I underlined above, via Vatican II has definitely decided that unity is of primary importance but that doesn’t mean absolute uniformity. There is great understanding that what is best for the faithful in Africa is different than what is best for Americans (inculturization of the Mass). Nothing that Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict has said would indicate that absolute uniformity is preferred.

Regarding what I bolded, I couldn’t disagree more. In so many ways the Church is as strong and vibrant as it has been in the past 150 years. It is growing greater than the growth in the world’s population. There is greater emphasis and understanding on the need for unity and Catholic Identity than there has been since Pope Paul VI. And even despite the liturgical “innovations” and sex abuse scandal over the past few decades, emphasis on orthodoxy and conformance to Catholic Teaching, vocations and the faithfulness of our young is on the upswing in America. It is actually the awareness of all the problems in the US Church and the discussions on dealing with the problems that indicate a new vibrancy as opposed to the past practice of sweeping issues under the rug. Personally, I see great reason for hope and celebration and not despair and cynicism.

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

This tired old saw! “John Paul cared about style than substance.” This from the man who swatted down the idea of female ordination, faced a crowd of manipulated Marxists in Central America and bascially told them to shut their pie holes, etc, fought the culture of death, and suffered visibly before our eyes. If you’ve seen more photos of him kissing babies than celebrating Mass, then you and I aren’t looking at the same photos. And the girl who hugged him instead of kissing his ring: if it didn’t bother him, why does it bother anyone else? I think it’s some of the “traditionalists” who are more concerned with style than substance.

As for the Curia, is your friend at the Cathedral a Catholic? Benedict XVI was a part of that Curia, that Curia had cardinals who helped elect him, and when he was elected, they having all effectively AND legally been fired upon the death of Pope John Paul II, HE was the one who reappointed them. ALL OF THEM. I doubt there’s many there that he doesn’t want there.

I think the Holy Father thinks the liturgy needs to be reformed. It’s just possible, however, that he doesn’t think it needs to be reformed along the lines of that some people would like to see.

Very good points Kirk

 

[mcliffor]

Somehow I doubt he would have thought much of it…unless of course you imagine that the protocol of kissing the papal ring (which I would certainly do) was already in practice at that particular time? Do you think Peter had a ring? I doubt he even had a crozier, why would a fisherman need a shepherd’s crook?

Look, I don’t care what he thought of it. I’m telling you what I thought of it, my opinion, that’s it. And I brought that up because it’s a popular photo which shows up all the time. You know how many photographs there must be of people greeting the pope, a ring kiss, a hand shake, a genuflection? How come everyone seems to have heard of this story and seen this photo, but don’t care so much about the others. What does that tell you about what people want to celebrate about JPII? Are they more interested in his orthodoxy and strength as a leader or the way’s he was more like a familar relative than a monarch? Why do they think he should be canonized?

As far as I can tell, man of the people doesn’t refer to someone with humble beginnings. It means someone who considers himself representative of what people want, popular with them, and tries to eliminate things that might make people think he somehow thinks he’s better than them. From what I know about JPII, the way he traveled, dressed, the gestures he made, he did want to be “seen” in a particular light and this is how he wanted people to see the pope. He will probably always be known as the people’s pope, and for good reasons. I, personally, as a student and not a theologian, think Pius V, Pius X and Gregory the Great were all better models for future popes than JPII. Not because JPII necessarily did less than they did, but because JPII is popular for his “image” if you want to use that term, and not for the amazing things he did to hold the Church together. That is how he will be remebered by most people and non-Catholics. I don’t think this is the case in Eastern Europe, but I know that JPII lovers in my own neighborhood love him for the ways he “differed” from popes like Gregory the Great and Pius X, not because he shared many of their saintly qualities.

By the way, our poor and humble Pope St. Pius X saw nothing wrong with wearing a crown…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mcliffor:

Look, I don’t care what he thought of it. I’m telling you what I thought of it, my opinion, that’s it. And I brought that up because it’s a popular photo which shows up all the time. You know how many photographs there must be of people greeting the pope, a ring kiss, a hand shake, a genuflection? How come everyone seems to have heard of this story and seen this photo, but don’t care so much about the others. What does that tell you about what people want to celebrate about JPII? Are they more interested in his orthodoxy and strength as a leader or the way’s he was more like a familar relative than a monarch? Why do they think he should be canonized? You brought Peter up, not I. And I don’t care what the world thought of John Paul, I think the world got him as wrong as you’re getting him. I think he was about honestly representing JESUS CHRIST, whose Vicar he was. He did a superlative job, IMHO, and he will be canonized for THAT, not for what either Shirley McLean or Pat Buchannon thought of him.

As far as I can tell, man of the people doesn’t refer to someone with humble beginnings. **A) **It means someone who considers himself representative of what people want, popular with them, and B) tries to eliminate things that might make people think he somehow thinks he’s better than them. From what I know about JPII, the way he traveled, C) dressed, the gestures he made, he did want to be “seen” in a particular light and this is how he wanted people to see the pope. He will probably always be known as the people’s pope, and for good reasons. D) I, personally, as a student and not a theologian, think Pius V, Pius X and Gregory the Great were all better models for future popes than JPII. E) Not because JPII necessarily did less than they did, but because JPII is popular for his “image” if you want to use that term, and not for the amazing things he did to hold the Church together. That is how he will be remebered by most people and non-Catholics. I don’t think this is the case in Eastern Europe, but I know that JPII lovers in my own neighborhood love him for the ways he “differed” from popes like Gregory the Great and Pius X, not because he shared many of their saintly qualities.

F) By the way, our poor and humble Pope St. Pius X saw nothing wrong with wearing a crown…

See above letters:

A) I don’t perceive that John Paul thought he represented the people, I perceive that he believed he represented Christ.

B) What do you mean? The Pope confesses to a priest like every other Catholic (JPII went 2 and 3 times a week according to some reports). On one level, he’s not better than any other human. Now objectively speaking, you and I know that he’s a least several notches above MOST other human beings, BUT…what would we think if he walked around behaving as though HE actually believed that as well? Would we have thought it fitting in the Vicar of Christ? It wouldn’t have meshed terribly well with the image of the Suffering Servant spoken of in Isaiah or portrayed in the Gospels, who again, was whom John Paul “represented.” Again, picture Christ with a towel wrapped around His Middle, kneeling before John Paul’s predecessor, and washing his feet. That has to MEAN something or else it’s just a pretty little ceremony we do on Holy Thursday.

C)Same white cassock, same Mass robes (wait sorry, not the sacred fiddleback!), what did you want him to wear?

D) I think they were perfect for their time, necessary for their time. And I think the Holy Spirit got it dead right in 1978, too.
BUT as far as role models for future popes go, John Paul’s got them beat (not their fault, though, it was the time they lived in). Why? Because (and loving ceremony as much as you do you’ll appreciate this) it’s like Queen Elizabeth II said: “I have to be seen to be believed.” The Pope is the Supreme Pastor (and Pontiff, I won’t quibble) of the Universal Church. He, too, must be seen to be believed, in Africa, in America, in Tonga, everywhere he can possibly go. He’s the successor to the principal Fisher of Men and he’s got to cast his net deep. Future popes cannot stay in the Vatican, inaccessible to the world, they have to go out and engage it and challenge it and they have to be seen.

E) It isn’t John Paul’s fault nor the Church’s fault that the world loved him, but loved him for the wrong reason. And in the end the world’s opinion won’t matter.

F) God bless Saint Pius X, he was a great and noble pope. It was, however, his prudential judgement to wear the tiara. He also, if you look, wore an alb that made him look like he had on a hoop skirt. I know he didn’t, but that’s what it looked like. I hope we don’t return to that and I hope we don’t return to the tiara. But then you and I have discussed that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/PopePiusX.JPGThis isn’t the pic I was refering to, but I think you can see what I mean.

 

[thistle]

James0235:

Wow! This is the first time I have ever heard anyone refer to Pope Bendedict as an ultra traditionalist.

James

I notice you didn’t answer my question!!!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

JKirkLVNV:

See above letters:

A) I don’t perceive that John Paul thought he represented the people, I perceive that he believed he represented Christ.

B) What do you mean? The Pope confesses to a priest like every other Catholic (JPII went 2 and 3 times a week according to some reports). On one level, he’s not better than any other human. Now objectively speaking, you and I know that he’s a least several notches above MOST other human beings, BUT…what would we think if he walked around behaving as though HE actually believed that as well? Would we have thought it fitting in the Vicar of Christ? It wouldn’t have meshed terribly well with the image of the Suffering Servant spoken of in Isaiah or portrayed in the Gospels, who again, was whom John Paul “represented.” Again, picture Christ with a towel wrapped around His Middle, kneeling before John Paul’s predecessor, and washing his feet. That has to MEAN something or else it’s just a pretty little ceremony we do on Holy Thursday.

C)Same white cassock, same Mass robes (wait sorry, not the sacred fiddleback!), what did you want him to wear?

D) I think they were perfect for their time, necessary for their time. And I think the Holy Spirit got it dead right in 1978, too.
BUT as far as role models for future popes go, John Paul’s got them beat (not their fault, though, it was the time they lived in). Why? Because (and loving ceremony as much as you do you’ll appreciate this) it’s like Queen Elizabeth II said: “I have to be seen to be believed.” The Pope is the Supreme Pastor (and Pontiff, I won’t quibble) of the Universal Church. He, too, must be seen to be believed, in Africa, in America, in Tonga, everywhere he can possibly go. He’s the successor to the principal Fisher of Men and he’s got to cast his net deep. Future popes cannot stay in the Vatican, inaccessible to the world, they have to go out and engage it and challenge it and they have to be seen.

E) It isn’t John Paul’s fault nor the Church’s fault that the world loved him, but loved him for the wrong reason. And in the end the world’s opinion won’t matter.

F) God bless Saint Pius X, he was a great and noble pope. It was, however, his prudential judgement to wear the tiara. He also, if you look, wore an alb that made him look like he had on a hoop skirt. I know he didn’t, but that’s what it looked like. I hope we don’t return to that and I hope we don’t return to the tiara. But then you and I have discussed that.

As long as we’re speculating about John Paul the Great, I’ll throw in my own musings.

At Mother Theresa’s beatification, which I was privileged to attend, I was asked by my Protestant travel companion what I thought of the people clapping for John Paul during the Mass (I can’t remember exactly why, it may have just been the “Yay, we see the pope” applause). It got me thinking that he would probably much rather they weren’t using the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to rubberneck, but that he knows what his office means to people. Not only does he have a chance to speak to Catholics the world over, but his visits are capable of reaffirming the dignity of oppressed believers. Think Poles behind the Iron Curtain, Nicaraguans under the Sandinistas, Mexican under their anti-clerical government. The pope’s words are not just for the rich, or the powerful. When he addresses the world, he is addressing all men of goodwill, and each of them is worth his time and a visit. Which means more to a man under tyranny, a speech made in the Vatican, or the pope standing right in front of you, in the midst of opression, challenging you to “Be not afraid! Open wide the doors for Christ!”

As for the “image” of John Paul II that will remain, I know that I love the young John Paul. But the man I love the most is the man who refused to step down from the cross. The man I saw trying to catch his breath in the middle of the Eucharistic prayer. The man who tried to speak to his flock even when he had no voice. That is an image that will surely never supplant all others, but will always remain dear to my heart.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Andreas Hofer:

As long as we’re speculating about John Paul the Great, I’ll throw in my own musings.

At Mother Theresa’s beatification, which I was privileged to attend, I was asked by my Protestant travel companion what I thought of the people clapping for John Paul during the Mass (I can’t remember exactly why, it may have just been the “Yay, we see the pope” applause). It got me thinking that he would probably much rather they weren’t using the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to rubberneck, but that he knows what his office means to people. Not only does he have a chance to speak to Catholics the world over, but his visits are capable of reaffirming the dignity of oppressed believers. Think Poles behind the Iron Curtain, Nicaraguans under the Sandinistas, Mexican under their anti-clerical government. The pope’s words are not just for the rich, or the powerful. When he addresses the world, he is addressing all men of goodwill, and each of them is worth his time and a visit. Which means more to a man under tyranny, a speech made in the Vatican, or the pope standing right in front of you, in the midst of opression, challenging you to “Be not afraid! Open wide the doors for Christ!”

As for the “image” of John Paul II that will remain, I know that I love the young John Paul. But the man I love the most is the man who refused to step down from the cross. The man I saw trying to catch his breath in the middle of the Eucharistic prayer. The man who tried to speak to his flock even when he had no voice. That is an image that will surely never supplant all others, but will always remain dear to my heart.

You have undone me. You’ve also perfectly expressed why I think he will be, in due time, Saint John Paul the Great.

 

[otm]

totustuusmaria:

My experience has been that the average age at TLM is younger than the average age at a Novus Ordo in the same region. I think that this is a phenominon which involves many many youth.

considering that the number of Masses in the US said in any one week are almost entirely the Pauline rite, there are a few youth who attend the Tridentine rite. There is a website showing the locations of Tridentine rite Masses in the US; it averages about 1 to 2 per state (as not all states have them). and where there may be 4 or 5 or 6 or more Masses said at a church on a weekend, and some of the locations only have 1 Mass in the Tridentine rite on the weekend, the statistics are way smaller than those who promote the rite would have one to believe.

 

[palmas85]

otm:

considering that the number of Masses in the US said in any one week are almost entirely the Pauline rite, there are a few youth who attend the Tridentine rite. There is a website showing the locations of Tridentine rite Masses in the US; it averages about 1 to 2 per state (as not all states have them). and where there may be 4 or 5 or 6 or more Masses said at a church on a weekend, and some of the locations only have 1 Mass in the Tridentine rite on the weekend, the statistics are way smaller than those who promote the rite would have one to believe.

Well OTM, I can only speak for the three cities where I have attended the Indult Traditional mass, New Orleans, pre Katrina, Phoenox and San Diego. Each of those locations had standing room only, probably between 4 and 500 or more for the Masses and I would say conservatively about 50% of the congregations are under thirty, including large numbers of young families. From what I have seen there are two factors limiting the attendace at these masses, one lack of knowledge. Most people hear about them word of mouth and two lack of availability. Here in San Diego for instance the Diocese has been lobbied for years to grant an increase in the number of masses offered. Refused. Requested another larger location, Refused. What can you do? You cannot fight the Bishops, they say no, it’s no.

All the Traditional Mass haters can say what they want. from everything I’ve seen the Indult masses are doing fine, held back only by the Bishops. Now the SSPXrs generally are in small congregations, I will grant you that, but not the indult. At least not to my experience

I

 

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

palmas85:

Well OTM, I can only speak for the three cities where I have attended the Indult Traditional mass, New Orleans, pre Katrina, Phoenox and San Diego. Each of those locations had standing room only, probably between 4 and 500 or more for the Masses and I would say conservatively about 50% of the congregations are under thirty, including large numbers of young families. From what I have seen there are two factors limiting the attendace at these masses, one lack of knowledge. Most people hear about them word of mouth and two lack of availability. Here in San Diego for instance the Diocese has been lobbied for years to grant an increase in the number of masses offered. Refused. Requested another larger location, Refused. What can you do? You cannot fight the Bishops, they say no, it’s no.

All the Traditional Mass haters can say what they want. from everything I’ve seen the Indult masses are doing fine, held back only by the Bishops. Now the SSPXrs generally are in small congregations, I will grant you that, but not the indult. At least not to my experience

I

Hey Palmas,
I thought you might like to know. The Indult Mass you attended in New Orleans, (pre Katrina) Is my Home parish. We are up and going strong! through the grace of God. We had minimal damage. Our Indult Mass Has an even larger crowd now. As so many parishes were literally destroyed, due to the wrath of this storm. Also the FEMA people and out of town workers, have discovered our indult Mass. I just recieved in the mail our Christmas Mass schedule, we are having our usual Solemn high Mass of Midnight. (Tridentine) with full orchestra, organ and choir. Schubert Mass in G minor. with gregorian and sacred polyphony. you know it really disturbs me when I see posters on this forum denigrate the tridentine Mass. One in particular, who always throws out the old canard about “mumbling” the Latin. Even though being a convert and having only assisted at the Tridentine Mass 1-2 times I hardly see that as qualifying someone to make relevant judgment. This mass was the center of the Churches Liturgical life for Centuries. The same Church who now has the Novus Ordo as the norm. Both masses are valid, both belong to the same Church. But having attended the tridentine almost exclusively, my entire Catholic life. I will take “mumbled” Latin. (never seen or heard it) over sheer banality, (seen and heard lots of it) any day.

Always enjoy your posts Palmas!
Unite with us in prayer on Christmas, I will be remembering you in prayer at the mass of Midnight.

 

[JSmitty2005]

mcliffor:

By the way, our poor and humble Pope St. Pius X saw nothing wrong with wearing a crown…

Good old Pope John XXIII wore the tiara as well…

http://myspace-829.vo.llnwd.net/00344/92/89/344139829_l.jpg

By the way, when I asked him:

“alright, man, i know you probably didn’t want everything to turn out the way it did, but why’d you have to start that stinkin’ council? all it did was screw stuff up”

He responded…

"In hindsight, I would not have, if I had thought it would have been interpreted in such a destructive way.

People like you will reclaim the Church…

In Pacis Christi,
IOANNES PP. XXIII"

Well, I didn’t actually ask the real J23, just someone posing as him on myspace. But there may have been some Divine Providence in his response.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

QUICUMQUE VULT:

you know it really disturbs me when I see posters on this forum denigrate the tridentine Mass. One in particular, who always throws out the old canard about “mumbling” the Latin. Even though being a convert and having only assisted at the Tridentine Mass 1-2 times I hardly see that as qualifying someone to make relevant judgment. This mass was the center of the Churches Liturgical life for Centuries. The same Church who now has the Novus Ordo as the norm. Both masses are valid, both belong to the same Church. But having attended the tridentine almost exclusively, my entire Catholic life. I will take “mumbled” Latin. (never seen or heard it) over sheer banality, (seen and heard lots of it) any day.

.

Of course it’s entirely possible that person is tired of hearing posters on this forum denigrate the Pauline Mass. People tend to defend what they love, I’m sure you would agree. I attended a TLM Mass and it WAS mumbled AND that is a common complaint from lots of people who were raised in the pre-conciliar Church. Are they liars? Now, I’ve also attended a handful of abused Pauline Masses and I’ve read enough on these forums to suspect that, in this country at least, this must be fairly widespread. Though I love the Pauline Mass, I won’t call liars those who say they see it abused (I do think the word “abuse” has come to be a handle, however, for things some people don’t like…like the Pauline Mass itself) nor do I normally disparge the TLM. AND, is your indult the TLM or the Pauline Mass in Latin? There is a difference, you know, the silent canon is only TLM, if I understand correctly.

Maybe we could just leave each others masses alone?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JSmitty2005:

Good old Pope John XXIII wore the tiara as well…

http://myspace-829.vo.llnwd.net/00344/92/89/344139829_l.jpg

By the way, when I asked him:

“alright, man, i know you probably didn’t want everything to turn out the way it did, but why’d you have to start that stinkin’ council? all it did was screw stuff up”

He responded…

"In hindsight, I would not have, if I had thought it would have been interpreted in such a destructive way.

People like you will reclaim the Church…

In Pacis Christi,
IOANNES PP. XXIII"

Well, I didn’t actually ask the real J23, just someone posing as him on myspace. But there may have been some Divine Providence in his response.

So at the age of 19, you think you know better than a Vicar of Christ and the bishops of the world in council together? You wouldn’t have held the council that he deemed fitting and they came to at his call? You don’t think that’s slightly arrogant?

 

[mcliffor]

The deacon at a praish I often go to in NJ was becoming and FSSP priest and was looking for a place to hold his first mass. The bishop of Camden, where the Cathedral was, said he would not allow it, since it was a latin mass. Cardinal Regali said he could use the Phillie Cathedral, but he wasn’t allowed to do ANY advertising, since he didn’t want to draw people to the Latin Mass. He obviously felt threatened by it in some way. I was glad to see that without any advertising ono the part of the Cathedral, there were enough people who actively sought it out on websites and by word of mouth that every pew in that Cathedral was filled. If you’ve ever been, you know how beautiful it is. It was amazing to see the TLM in there. The art took on a new meaning. Afterall, that’s the mass the architects thought the building would be used for.

 

[mcliffor]

JKirkLVNV:

So at the age of 19, you think you know better than a Vicar of Christ and the bishops of the world in council together? You wouldn’t have held the council that he deemed fitting and they came to at his call? You don’t think that’s slightly arrogant?

I don’t think he’s trying to play the role of the Pope, just questioning the effectiveness of the council based on what he sees as negative results.

 

[Jayson]

"The appointment of the new secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, may be a signal of Pope Benedict’s intention on the liturgy. Apparently the archbishop, when he was bishop of a diocese in Sri Lanka, was very favorably inclined toward the Tridentine Mass, and even met with Bernard Fellay, leader of the Society of St. Pius X in 2001.

According to sources, he told Fellay that the crisis of the priesthood is a crisis of the identity of the priest and thus a crisis in the liturgy and that a renewal of the priesthood and of the Church must begin with a renewal of the liturgy.

Fellay claims that after Ranjith was appointed to the Roman Curia in 2002, that Ranjith told him, “I agree 200% with you that there really is a problem in the Church with the liturgy and the priesthood, and both go together. We must work on this, and there is no doubt that the Pope has to set free the true Catholic Mass for everyone I am going now to Rome where I will have my private chapel. I have just taken care to get a Missal of St. Pius V to celebrate Mass as it should be."

This would be a significant statement by the man who is now second in charge at the Congregation for Divine Worship, both for hope for reconciliation with the SSPX and for any possible developments in the reform of the reform of the liturgy. "

bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/index.php/weblog/a_sign_from_pope_benedict_on_the_liturgy/