Rorate Caeli

"It is said"

From a news dispatch (October 21) of the French Episcopal Conference (CEF):

As for the eventual Motu Proprio, "its text is written" and it is "being re-read" by different Vatican congregations, because it elicits opposition, even amidst the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. "It is necessary to let [things] mature, not to precipitate" things, it is said in Rome.
"It is said"...by whom? They do not say.

22 comments:

Ambrosianus said...

From the news dispatch of the French Episcopal Conference: "Pour beaucoup de théologiens ce projet marque une rupture avec l'unité qui est celle de l'Eucharistie.[...] Avec deux rites dans l'Église latine, il s'agit d'une "nouveauté" qui va à l'encontre de la tradition." Here's an excellent example of a shameful falsification in history of the Western Liturgy.
The Western Church has always known and approved several different rites and uses for local communitis or religious orders, as Card. Ratzinger mentioned in his famous intervention during the "Ecclesia Dei" decennial in Rome: the Ambosian, the Mozarabic, the Dominican, the Cistercian, the Carthusian etc.
To think that only one rite should be permitted in the whole West: that is not only a "novelty againts tradition", but also an intolerable offence to the venerable non-roman rites of the Catholic Church!

humboldt said...

I don't understand why does the french catholic church believe that it has a special role to play in this issue. This is not a problem of the french catholic church, but of the whole church. Just because Arcbishop Lefevbrev was french does not mean his problem was with the church in France. He had a problem with the Holy See. And I wonder what do they mean when they say that: "It is necessary to let [things] mature, not to precipitate". This problem has been going on for almost 40 years. And every single piece of the problem has been discussed and re-discussed. The solution is very clear and straighforward: "lift up the restrictions on the Tridentine Mass". What do the french want, and who do they think they are? Until when is the Pope going to allow this scandalous situation in the church to continue? Don't they have any sense of guilt before God for this continuing problem, since it is clearly a created situation? No one believes that this situation will automatically change the situation of the SSPX witht the Holy See. These issues are separated. The Pope should do what is correct, and stop to artificially delayed the solution of this problem. Or do the french want to convene an Ecumenical Council to discuss this matter?

bona gratia said...

What is it about "rightful aspirations" that the Curia or others cannot or does not understand?

proklos said...

It amazes me that in this blog in the last few days II have heard opinions that I have waited forty years to hear expressed by Catholics like Ambrosianus and humboldt. The posting "Un seul rit", of course, was priceless, although I did not comment. If this Motu Proprio is as they say, it will be of ultimate significance. No doubt we cannot expect it to re-dress every wrong. Yet, it will be a step in the right direction.

With Peter said...

It is certainly the height of hypocrisy to complain about traditionalists "disobedience" to the Holy See and then refuse to acknowledge the pope's right to erect a distinct traditionalist "rite" or "usage" or whatever the technical term will be for the canonical place of traditional liturgy within the life of the Chruch.

I am troubled by these bishops' insistence to produce a commentary before the Motu Proprio is even published.

humboldt said...

Whatever the outcome of this results to be, it will be the sole resonsability of Pope Benedict XVI. Just as it was Paul VI's sole responsability that started this problem, and JPII's responsability who did not put a final fix to this problem, when he had the chance. AMDG.

David L Alexander said...

"The Western Church has always known and approved several different rites and uses for local communitis or religious orders..."

...but only one rite associated with the Church of Rome. It is that which presents the historical conundrum; the existence of two Roman Rites (to be distinguished from the many rites in the west that comprise the "Latin rite" family). That may not be reason enough to prevent the expanded use of the classical Roman missal, but it does put the issue in proper context.

humboldt said...

I think that the Tridentine form and the Novus Ordo form are not considered different rites, but only different forms of the same rite.

alsaticus said...

Bishop Skylstad who is simply ignoring the 1988 motu proprio Ecclesia Dei in his diocese, and seems very proud of this in a recent interview granted to John Allen of NCR, is - alas - not better than some disrespectful French bishops.
Disrespectful and, above all, poorly informed by distorted ideological advisors.
Many French bishops are convinced the traditionalist movement is only a French question ; most French and a vast majority of European bishops have no idea about "Campos", about the flourishing trad. communities in the USA, about the far more benevolent pastoral attitude of American or Australian bishops.
Many French bishops are convinced trads = fascists or voters for Jean-Marie Le Pen extreme-right party.
Many French and European bishops have lost any idea of what "liturgy" really means : they could share with Bp Skylstad about destroying any rite with more so-called inculturation, more dancing, more night-clubbing in a cathedral (like Bp Raffin did in Metz cathedral), more "fun", more confusion of church and canteen, more confusion of lay role and priesthood etc.
In the USA, cardinal Mahony and "emeritus" (without any merit) abp Weakland are slowly becoming dinosaurs from the nasty 1970's ; in France and Europe, the Mahony-Weakland club represents 60% to 80% of the episcopate.
Have a look on the stats to see the consequences... and remember there are souls lost every minute here because of those failing shepherds.

Guadalupe Guard said...

"It is that which presents the historical conundrum; the existence of two Roman Rites."

In integral liturgical lineage there is only one Roman rite, that of the 1962 (and possibly 1965) missal. Indeed this rite can be properly called the "Perennial Roman Rite" if necessary. But it is really the Novus Ordo that must be qualified: I think it is well described as the "Secular Rite" or, if you must, the "Secular Roman Rite." In any case, it cannot claim valid lineage with the Perennial Roman Rite.

Even so, I suppose it can be argued that in this era of the Church there is a need for a secular rite because of the great apostasy (though I am afraid the great apostasy was in part facilitated by the advent of the Secular Novus Ordo Rite). The Novus Ordo Secular Rite then not only allows for encultration but is itself the result of an attempt at enculuration with modernity.

In any case, I do firmly believe that the traditional Mass and its adherents are the leaven of the Church and destined to be her future.

With Peter said...

Humboldt- "I think that the Tridentine form and the Novus Ordo form are not considered different rites, but only different forms of the same rite."

Yes. I don't think any magisterial document has said or will say that they are two distinct "rites." Different orders? Perhaps. Different forms? Certainly. But different rites?

Guadalupe Guard- I think you mean "inculturation" (cf. CCC 854, 1204-1206). I do agree with you that the traditional liturgy and traditionalists are called to be leaven within the Church.

Al Trovato said...

Mr. Alexander,

How are all of these ONE SINGLE rite:

http://tinyurl.com/wap3q

Jeff said...

I think in any case my friend David Alexander is not correct.

There have been variant Uses which have been approved. The Use of Lyons is one such. And of course in the Middle Ages there were a multiplicity of Uses, such as the Sarum Use in England. All of these were variant forms of the Roman Rite.

Indeed, the venerable Ambrosian Rite of Milan is really a variant of the Roman rite and could be characterized as a "Use".

MC Dante said...

The neocaths also have their own form of the Roman Rite (or so they think). And every priest is allowed to celebrate with them. O horror...

Ambrosianus said...

Jeff wrote: Indeed, the venerable Ambrosian Rite of Milan is really a variant of the Roman rite and could be characterized as a "Use".

I'm afraid this is a common mistake. Whereas the Bragan and Lyonese "Rites" are, in fact, local uses of the Roman Rite -which nullifies david I alexander's objection-, the Ambrosian and Mozarabic are true local rites, as every serious liturgical history manual teaches even today...
However, the point is that, unlike what French Bishops maintain, all these rites and uses belong to the same "Latin Church" to quote the infamous dispatch.

Cerimoniere said...

The problem is that the Holy See is proposing to have two concurrent versions of the same Use, not two different Uses. There will be two Roman Missals (and, presumably, two of the other liturgical books) in force at the same time, differentiated only by the date of their first issue. This really is unprecedented, as far as I know.

The source of the problem is that the Holy See is not presently willing to say that they are in fact completely different Uses, one of which has always been the Roman Rite, and the other of which has been falsely so called in the immediate past. Clearly, we can't expect that to happen for a very long time. However, the inconsistency isn't our problem. We can live with it, and let the modernists try to explain why the Roman Pontiff wants a previous version of his own local Use to be universally available.

Matt said...

More word on the French opposition... Benedict must be doing something right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102300288.html

Papabile said...

Now is the time to call the French Bishops unfaithful to Vatican II. It would tick them off more than anything else.

Cite Sacrosanctun Concilium:

"4. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. "

"22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. ..."

David L Alexander said...

Guadalupe, thou hast writ:

"[I]t is really the Novus Ordo that... it cannot claim valid lineage with the Perennial Roman Rite."

On the title page of the Missal of Paul VI, it is identified as "The Roman Missal." Whatever you or I may think of it, and the history of its development notwithstanding, it is the Church of Rome which makes that determination. Such as it is.

David L Alexander said...

Ambrosianus said:

"I'm afraid this is a common mistake. Whereas the Bragan and Lyonese 'Rites' are, in fact, local uses of the Roman Rite... the Ambrosian and Mozarabic are true local rites, as every serious liturgical history manual teaches even today..."

I'd be interested in an elaboration of this distinction, should one be available in print or on the web.

Al Trovato said...

Mr. Alexander,

You quoted and said:

" "I'm afraid this is a common mistake. Whereas the Bragan and Lyonese 'Rites' are, in fact, local uses of the Roman Rite... the Ambrosian and Mozarabic are true local rites, as every serious liturgical history manual teaches even today..."

I'd be interested in an elaboration of this distinction, should one be available in print or on the web."

Here is the information you are looking for, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The Western medieval rites are in no case (except the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites), really independent of Rome. They are merely the Roman Rite with local additions and modifications, most of which are to
its disadvantage."

http://tinyurl.com/sel6r

Maybe you should add the obscure Catholic Encyclopedia to your vast liturgical knowledge before you start asking for evidence.

Regarding the instant case, you shoulg google "Catholic Encyclopedia", go to the letter "R" click on "Rites", type "Ctrl + F" on your keyboard, then write "Ambrosian". You'll then find the information you are looking for.

New Catholic said...

OK, that was a good discussion.