Rorate Caeli

Pope Benedict on Summorum

In his first public comments on Summorum Pontificum since its publication, on July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI had the following to say on the motu proprio in an interview granted during his Rome-Paris flight earlier today:

This 'motu proprio' is simply an act of tolerance, with a pastoral objective, for people who have been formed in this liturgy, who love it, know it and want to live with this liturgy. It is a small group, given that it presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture. But it seems to me a normal demand of faith and pastoral concern for a bishop of our Church to have love and tolerance for these people and permit them to live with this liturgy.

There is no opposition whatsoever between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy. Each day, the Council fathers celebrated Mass according to this old rite and, at the same time, have conceived a natural development for the liturgy in all of this century, since the liturgy is a living reality that develops and that conserves its identity in its development.

Therefore, there are certainly distinct accents, but a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the preceding liturgy. I think that there is the possibility of mutual enrichment. It's clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times.


The official text of the interview will be released shortly; current translation provided by Zenit.

43 comments:

Iosephus said...

Not exactly wildly thrilling comments...

Francesco said...

The one thing that struck me from this is the Holy Father's repetition of the word "tolerance." Could it be that the pope is trying to expose the hypocrisy of the progressive bishops especially in countries like France? Could it be that the pope is, in a gentle way, rebuking those who on the one hand preach "tolerance" day in and day out and on the other do everything possible to deny traditional Catholics (and really all Catholics) their right to traditional liturgy and practices?

I think these comments have to be read in their context and in light of everything else the pope has been saying and doing these past few years.

James Card said...

I'm not sure what this all means. I think Cardinal Ratzinger's sentiments were somewhat different than these.

NCTradCatholic said...

"Each day, the Council fathers celebrated Mass according to this old rite and, at the same time, have conceived a natural development for the liturgy". But that's not what we got, is it? A "banal, fabricated" creation instead, to use Cardinal Ratzinger's own words.

"The possibility of mutual enrichment"?? Heaven help us.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

It seems, then, that there will be no Reform of the Reform coming soon, although a "mutual enrichment" will occur sometime in the future.

I take this statement both as a plea for greater "tolerance" for the TLM in the Church (a tolerance that has not been conceded in large areas in the Church despite SP) and as a declaration that the Novus Ordo is here to stay. Indeed, the Pope seems anxious to underline that there is no "contradiction" between the TLM and the Novus Ordo.

What baffles me is that the Holy Father seems also to be saying (here and elsewhere) that the postconciliar liturgy is a genuine development of the Gregorian Rite.

Anonymous said...

Very disappointing, and not what the text of the motu proprio, nor what Cardinal Hoyos has assured us it means. Truly perplexing and quite saddening. Is the 'small group' insular, and must we come from a certain culture with sufficient 'formation' in Latin?

JBrown

Anonymous said...

Upsetting. Let us continue to pray and do good, and be asssured the SP is the law of the Church. In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternum!

Iosephus said...

I agree that the remark about having a "formation" in Latin is rather disheartening. It sounds more like something that Reggie Foster would say - "sure, the Mass can be in Latin, as long as everyone present is a competent Latinist" - than, as someone else has been noted, what Cardinal Hoyos has said.

Jordanes said...

JBrown said: Is the 'small group' insular,

He didn't say so.

and must we come from a certain culture with sufficient 'formation' in Latin?

He didn't say "must." He said those who know and love the traditional liturgy come from a certain culture, one that is familiar with and attached to Latin liturgy, but he neither said nor implied that only those who are "sufficiently formed in Latin" should be permitted to have the traditional liturgy.

The Holy Father also didn't say that the motu proprio is "only" an act of tolerance exclusively for those who have been formed in the traditional liturgy, but for no one else. But it is to be expected that he would focus on tolerance for those who are attached to the old Missal while on his way to France, where there is immense intolerance for them, and that he would emphasise that the extraordinary and ordinary uses of the Roman Rite are not in opposition while flying to a place where the belief is near universal that they are contradictory and irreconcilably opposed.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, I only read what the press reports the Pope to have said. In the comments, he noted that the number of those who would want the traditional liturgy is small, largely because it presupposes a formation in Latin and a 'certain culture'. I can tell you personally that before I began regularly attending the traditional Mass (vs. the abuse-ridden renewed Masses I previously attended), I belonged to no other culture than other Catholics of my nation and region, and my formation in Latin was not great. So, apparently, the motu proprio's tolerance may not be intended for me and I wouldn't be eligible for a 'stable group', which now must prove the formation in Latin and its citizenship in a certain culture. I guess this is the long-awaited clarification?

J Brown

Jordanes said...

J Brown said: Jordanes, I only read what the press reports the Pope to have said.

No, you're doing more than that: you're interpreting his words, and giving them a sense which may be more negative than he intended them.

In the comments, he noted that the number of those who would want the traditional liturgy is small,

Yes, it's certainly a small number. The number will increase as time goes on, but it can't be foreseen that those who want the traditional liturgy will outnumber those who don't want it any time soon.

largely because it presupposes a formation in Latin and a 'certain culture'.

His observation is accurate: most Catholics have not been formed in a culture in which Latin and the old liturgy would be something they would appreciate or desire.

I can tell you personally that before I began regularly attending the traditional Mass (vs. the abuse-ridden renewed Masses I previously attended), I belonged to no other culture than other Catholics of my nation and region, and my formation in Latin was not great.

Neither do most Catholics, which is why "it is a small group" "who have been formed in this liturgy, who love it, know it and want to live with this liturgy."

If you weren't formed in this liturgy, surely you love it, know it, and want to live with it. If love and tolerance is "a normal demand of faith" for those who have been formed in this liturgy, then love and tolerance must also be a normal demand of faith for those who haven't but still love it and want to live with it. The Holy Father simply cannot be restricting the provisions of the motu proprio to those who were already going to the pre-Vatican II Mass prior to 14 Sept. 2007 -- that would reduce his words in this interview to gibberish and would practically render the motu proprio a dead letter.

So, apparently, the motu proprio's tolerance may not be intended for me and I wouldn't be eligible for a 'stable group', which now must prove the formation in Latin and its citizenship in a certain culture. I guess this is the long-awaited clarification?

Utter nonsense. Even if your suggested interpretation of his comments were correct -- and we have no reason to believe it is, and good reason to believe it isn't -- a Pope's comments to the press in an interview are not juridical decrees.

John L said...

It is not apparent how the motu proprio can be an act of tolerance if, as it asserts, the old liturgy was never abrogated and thus was always permitted.

Mornac said...

I’m not so sure that His Holiness isn't protecting us with his comments. Everyone here is aware of how much progress has been made in the past year and what the potential is for future gains. There’s no reason to let the Novus Ordo in on the particulars. The longer and more fervently they believe that there is nothing for them to fear, the more we can get done before there is any appreciable organized resistance to deal with. If the Holy Father wants to tell them “Don’t sweat it!” while he knows damn well that the Traditional Army is continually gaining ground on all sides – well, do you suppose it’s possible that he’s winking at us as he speaks?

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, the Pope's public comments will be used in lieu of the hoped-for, and so far nonexistent clarifications. The term stable group will now be interpreted as an insular, preexisting group that has formation in Latin-this will exclude the majority of traditional Mass-goers in the past 10 years! If a group of people simply ask their priest for a traditional Mass, will they be subject to such a test? And if they fail, what recourse will they have? A juridical decree is absolutely worthless if it is never enforced. That is simply a fact of life. JBrown

Former Altar Boy said...

Any hints or rumors from Rome when the purported letter "clarifying" the motu propio is supposed to be issued?

Anonymous said...

Queen of Fatima come to our rescue!

Patrick said...

Yes, I agree with Mornac that the Holy Father is protecting us. Remember, he is not addressing us in this interview, but the enemy! He is saying, be tolerant of this small group, they are so very small! - while all the time he knows that we punch far above our weight, and that in due course we will not be so small, nor the advocates of the new order so numerous or powerful. The Holy Father's aim here is to show up the French bishops as intolerant and unpastoral towards a persecuted minority, that's all. Don't read more than that into it.

Anonymous said...

I agree, the comments are not thrilling but context is important here. They are comments at a press conference on an airplane on the way to once-Catholic France where the bishops are problematic and live in a dream world that the post Vatican II world has been a golden age.

Let them eat their cake. I'm sure that following this trip it will be back to business as usual with more and more restoration.

Mark said...

Being an optimist, I tend to agree with Jordanes's interpretation of the Pope's remarks.

France, in my view, is a very special case - a mix of established militant secularism, ascending Islam, and a remnant of Traditional Catholicism with an uncertain status. Somewhere in that mix are the Bishops the Pope is trying to address.

Pope's remarks may have been tailored just for that country, and maybe the rest of us shouldn't read too much into them, lest we get depressed.

Anonymous said...

A worrying interview undoubtedly. It gives the impression the pope is back-pedalling, minimizing his own motu proprio.
The word "tolérance" in French is somewhat disparaging : it is read as a ... mere tolerance. Especially in the context of FrenChurch where cardinal Vingt-Trois is exactly considering Summorum Pontificum in the terms of Ecclesia Dei adflicta : a mere tolerance. Just like cardinal Re told Dr. de Saventhem in 1994 : TLM is tolerated for a while, the aim is novusordoizing trad people ...
It's like pope Benedict is contradicting himself ... pope Benedict's motu proprio and sending cardinal Ratzinger's works in the trashbin.
This interview will be used as a powerful weapon AGAINST the motu proprio in France and in all countries where S.P. is poorly implemented.

If the pope wanted to "protect us" as Mornac put it, maybe ? honestly I have no idea, but backpedalling to "tolerance" when the motu proprio is talking of a RIGHT - something entirely different - pope Benedict XVI has harmed the TLM status, at least in France, I'm afraid : the interview is what is called in the military "friendly shooting", when you kill your own soldiers !

This is probably the most unfortunate event of the whole papal visit : there were more interesting aspects, like the great defense for the Cross delivered to French youth and the pontifical Mass this morning at the Invalides, remarkable homily and striking image of people kneeling to receive Communion on their tongue.
Alsaticus

Jay said...

I am not sure if the Pope has even even seen this piece of liberal journalism - the Zenit is very progressive. One can see general trend growing in the Church, toward more traditional Catholicism. There are many quite liberal-minded Catholics who quickly transformed themselves quickly into staunch Traditionalist. Amazing to observe.

Jay said...

If this is genuine comment of the Holy Father, therefore it resembles me the good father of the family who never shows any preferences to his children, just for the sake of not inducing in them feelings of jealousy, envy, unhealthy competitiveness or even more unhealthy superiority, he does it for their own good.

Jordanes said...

Here is the original French of the question and the Holy Father's answer. Perhaps someone can compare this to the Zenit translation -- I don't know French, but from what little I know I gather that Zenit apparently left out some lines that elaborate on what he means by mutual enrichment:

“Que dites-vous à ceux qui, en France, craignent que le Motu proprio ‘Summorum pontificum’ marque un retour en arrière sur les grandes intuitions du Concile Vatican II ?

C’est une peur infondée parce que ce Motu proprio est simplement un acte de tolérance, dans un but pastoral pour des personnes qui ont été formées dans cette liturgie, l’aiment, la connaissent, et veulent vivre avec cette liturgie. C’est un petit groupe parce que cela suppose une formation en latin, une formation dans une certaine culture.

Mais il me semble que c’est exigence normale de la foi et de pastorale pour un évêque de notre Eglise d’avoir de l’amour et de la tolérance pour ces personnes et de leur permettre de vivre avec cette liturgie. Il n’y a aucune opposition entre la liturgie renouvelée par le Concile Vatican II et cette liturgie. Chaque jour (du Concile, ndlr), les pères conciliaires ont célébré la messe selon l’ancien rite et, en même temps, ils ont conçu un développement naturel pour la liturgie dans tout ce siècle car la liturgie est une réalité vivante qui se développe et conserve dans son développement son identité. Il y a donc certainement des accents différents, mais quand même une identité fondamentale qui exclue une contradiction, une opposition entre la liturgie renouvelée et la liturgie précédente. Je pense quand même qu’il y a une possibilité d’un enrichissement des deux parties. D’un côté les amis de l’ancienne liturgie peuvent et doivent connaître les nouveaux saints, les nouvelles préfaces de la liturgie, etc… d’autre part, la liturgie nouvelle souligne plus la participation commune mais, toujours, n’est pas seulement l’assemblée d’une seule communauté mais un acte de l’Eglise universelle, en communion avec tous les croyants de tous les temps, et un acte d’adoration. Dans ce sens, il me semble qu’il y a un enrichissement réciproque et il est clair que la liturgie renouvelée est la liturgie ordinaire de notre temps.”

Source: I.MEDIA via Le Forum Catholique, http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=430208

Jordanes said...

John L. said: It is not apparent how the motu proprio can be an act of tolerance if, as it asserts, the old liturgy was never abrogated and thus was always permitted.

Things that are lawful aren't necessarily tolerated -- especially when, in this case, it appeared that the old liturgy had been abrogated until the Holy See clarified that it had not.

J Brown said: Jordanes, the Pope's public comments will be used in lieu of the hoped-for, and so far nonexistent clarifications.

Yes, you're probably right -- if traditionalists are apt to misinterpret them the way you suggest, then those priests who are aware of the Pope's remarks but are not disposed to learn the old rites could well misinterpret them the same way.

The term stable group will now be interpreted as an insular, preexisting group that has formation in Latin-this will exclude the majority of traditional Mass-goers in the past 10 years! If a group of people simply ask their priest for a traditional Mass, will they be subject to such a test? And if they fail, what recourse will they have? A juridical decree is absolutely worthless if it is never enforced. That is simply a fact of life.

Be not afraid, J Brown. If rights are denied, God is the protector of the oppressed.

And there is always recourse to the Holy See.

Jordanes said...

Aha! Even as I was posting the French of the Pope's remarks, New Catholic was posting the translation!

Anonymous said...

That which is good and holy, and which has never been abrogated (and, indeed, permitted in principle) is not something that is "merely tolerated". This language is confusing and unhelpful, and hundreds of thousands of traditional Catholics, FSSP, SSPX and others, should not have their lives impacted in such a manner by an unofficial airplane interview of the Pontiff. We have a RIGHT to a clear interpretation of our legal rights under the Motu Proprio, and I hope some canon lawyer out there is preparing a formal canonical appeal for such interpretation right now. This seems to be backsliding into the days of Ecclesia Dei, when our fate hung with the whims of bishops and their level of 'tolerance'. Also, Jordanes, if appeals to the Holy See fail, one can still attend an SSPX Mass, according to official organs of the Holy See. JBrown

Dan Hunter said...

Completely ambigious and confusing remarks by His Holiness, at best.

Antonio said...

I don't think this is a step forward.
If after these remarks there is more "tolerance" in (the "intolerant") France, and the Extraordinary Form is more celebrated... what would be wrong with that?

Joe B said...

I think the Holy Father meant what he said, but doesn't realize how incriminating his views are. By "a certain culture" he meant the Catholic culture prior to Pope Paul's mass. In his mind, that was a different culture than the one we have now. If that is true, then the one we have now isn't Catholic ("a striking departure" sounds accurate). And the Novus Ordo culture isn't really Catholic in the classic sense, it's the replacement of all things culturally Catholic with new things. One wishes culture could be subject to theological infallibility so it could be protected against those who wish to turn our traditions into their playthings, but then that's probably why the heresy of modernism has been so difficult to define and attack - it has no boundaries, it just attacks wherever the culture is weakest, truly like a virus, and makes the entire structure weaker and thus opens up more targets as it works.

Anonymous said...

Le mot "tolerance" est un mot du Liberalisme....

L'Eglise du Concile Vatican II, c'est une eglise TRES liberale.

Il y a un livre tres celebre que s'appelle "El Liberalismo es Peccado" ecrit par Padre Felix Sarda en 1876.

Notre Saint-Pere d'aujourd'hui est TRES liberale. Que Dieu nous aide en ce temps-ci...Nous avons besoin d'un Pape comme St Pie X - toute de suite!!!

Jordanes said...

JBrown said: That which is good and holy, and which has never been abrogated (and, indeed, permitted in principle) is not something that is "merely tolerated".

It is when there is injustice.

Anyway, "merely tolerated" are your words, not the Holy Father's. And he wasn't talking to you, he was talking to those in France (including, and especially, the bishops) who fear and loathe and detest the motu proprio and those who would benefit from it.

This language is confusing and unhelpful, and hundreds of thousands of traditional Catholics, FSSP, SSPX and others, should not have their lives impacted in such a manner by an unofficial airplane interview of the Pontiff.

You and others might perceive the language to be confusing and unhelpful, but I don't find it confusing at all, and I can see how it was intended to be, and is, helpful to those in France who would like their bishops to implement the motu proprio.

You're misconstruing the Pope's words because you're not taking into account the reasons he said what he said, his intended audience, and the specific circumstances of those in France who yearn for the traditional Mass.

Joe B said: By "a certain culture" he meant the Catholic culture prior to Pope Paul's mass.

That's an assumption on your part. The Catholic culture that existed immediately prior to the Pauline Missal no longer exists, just as the Catholic culture that existed before the Council of Trent no longer exists.

In his mind, that was a different culture than the one we have now.

Not just in his mind, but in fact.

If that is true, then the one we have now isn't Catholic ("a striking departure" sounds accurate).

No, that doesn't follow at all. The Catholic culture of today's reformed Latin Rite is not that of today's traditional Latin Rite, which is not that of today's Maronite Rite, which is not that of today's Byzantine Rite . . . and none of them are the Latin or Byzantine or Maronite cultures of past centuries, but they are all Catholic cultures.

And the Novus Ordo culture isn't really Catholic in the classic sense, it's the replacement of all things culturally Catholic with new things.

You have a very limited understanding of Catholic culture.

One wishes culture could be subject to theological infallibility

Some may wish that, but no sensible person would. If it were, all Catholics (and there'd probably just be a few thousand worldwide) would still be celebrating the Eucharist in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, and wearing the kinds of clothing styles people wore 2,000 years ago, and using the technology and operating with the scientific knowledge of that era.

Subjecting culture to infallibility would effectively kill evangelisation.

Anonymous said...

When the Holy Father talks, I listen to his words. I don't discount them because of the audience, or unstated nuances or anything else. J Brown

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

"There is no opposition whatsoever between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy."

And there is no difference whatsoever between the color black and the colour white.

Jordanes said...

J Brown, of course you don't discount them -- but neither should you misinterpret them and give them a meaning they cannot possibly bear, as you have done.

LeonG said...

"What baffles me is that the Holy Father seems also to be saying (here and elsewhere) that the postconciliar liturgy is a genuine development of the Gregorian Rite."

No, no! There is nothing baffling about it - this is exactly what any modernist would say, so prepare yourselves for the "new synthesis". He has been indicating this often enough for a long time now. If you buy the " two forms one rite" hermeneutic of continuity, then you have swallowed the bait whole. That is exactly what we are going to get unless we prepare ourselves once more to defend The Latin Mass of All Times against further tinkering and novel changes. When all this is subsumed to "living tradition" then the liberal liturgical agenda opens wide its doors to welcome in the unsuspecting neo-conservatives who cannot see what is transpiring. The Latin Mass is in more danger now than it has ever been before.

To doubt this is to doubt reality.

"Mutual enrichment" and such formulae of words are coded signals as to what is in mind.

LeonG said...

br, anthony

It is the characteristic emptying out of what words really mean. Under the post-conciliar regime, anything can mean, literally anything, like for example, two forms, one rite when the forms are totally different with contrasting significations and objectives. Professor Amerio comprehended this trend quite clearly. There is certainly 40 years of "continuity" in that.

Anonymous said...

To Jordanes:
Your thesis that the Pope spoke to the French people, even if he spoke in French, does not hold.
When the Pope speaks it does so for the whole world, regardless of the language. His description of the TLM as mere tolerance is a striking departure from SP that affirmed that a sacred rite like that is a treasure of the Church that deserves to be preserved.
There is no such a thing as a "Catholic culture". There is only a Catholic Doctrine, which is the same as Jesus' and the one held by the Deposit of Faith up to the present time. The differences in rites is due to the different usages of liturgy in various regions. There were sundry Roman rites prior to Saint Pius V, so the Council of Trent codified, that is gave a unified version of it as the standard Roman rite, but it does not differ much from what existed since the early centuries of the Church. So, more than a thousand years had elalpsed and "culture" had not affected significantly the Roman mass, except for minor additions that grew organically from the original rite.
Thus, to speak of two versions of the Roman rite is a contradiction, because there must be only one. This euphemism was employed by BXVI to make it "tolerable" to the clergy that opposed it adamantly, but since SP there is no reason to speak of mere tolerance but a right of the people to celebrate it as always. What was good before the Council cannot be bad after it, or else, pre-conciliar Catholics were celebrating bad liturgy.

Charles

Jordanes said...

Charles said: Your thesis that the Pope spoke to the French people, even if he spoke in French, does not hold.

He was asked to say something to those in the French church who fear the motu proprio is contrary to, or a regression from, the liturgical reforms that followed Vatican II. It is impossible to establish that his answer was addressed to Catholics outside of France, and it is impossible to understand his meaning if we assume he was explaining the purpose of SP for the entire church.

When the Pope speaks it does so for the whole world, regardless of the language.

Yes and no. That his words have a worldwide impact does not mean he is addressing the whole world.

I can't imagine how you expect to understand what the Pope says if you think audience, context, intention, and language and translation do not need to be considered.

His description of the TLM as mere tolerance

He did not describe SP as "mere" tolerance. He said it is "simply" an act of tolerance.

is a striking departure from SP that affirmed that a sacred rite like that is a treasure of the Church that deserves to be preserved.

He did not deny anything that he decreed in SP. Remember, he was addressing the specific concerns of French Catholics who fear and loathe the traditional liturgy.

There is no such a thing as a "Catholic culture".

Nonsense. Any culture that is heavily imbued with and influenced and shaped by the faith is a Catholic culture.

There is only a Catholic Doctrine, which is the same as Jesus' and the one held by the Deposit of Faith up to the present time.

When Catholic doctrine is accepted and lived, a Catholic culture will develop. Doctrine is not abstract intellectual data, unconnected with real life: doctrine is all about real life.

The differences in rites is due to the different usages of liturgy in various regions. There were sundry Roman rites prior to Saint Pius V,

Or rather, there were sundry forms or variations of the Roman Rite. The Roman Rite is the Rite of the Church of Rome, which began to spread throughout the Western Church, in many cases replacing local rites, in some cases giving rise to local rites that became separate from the Roman Rite.

so the Council of Trent codified, that is gave a unified version of it as the standard Roman rite, but it does not differ much from what existed since the early centuries of the Church.

Depends on what one means by "differ much," and when exactly those "early centuries" were.

So, more than a thousand years had elalpsed and "culture" had not affected significantly the Roman mass, except for minor additions that grew organically from the original rite.

Rather, the Roman Mass had shaped internal church culture and culture outside the Church.

Thus, to speak of two versions of the Roman rite is a contradiction, because there must be only one.

No, what is a contradiction is what you're saying now compared to what you said a few lines earlier. If there must be only one Roman Rite, then how is it that there were sundry Roman rites before Trent? It is because those other variations of the Roman Rite were not yet fully separated or distinguished from the Roman Rite.

Anyway, there is no reason why there cannot be more than one version of a single Rite. Just because St. Pius ordered it that way, it doesn't follow that there is necessarily anything wrong or immoral or contrary to the Faith about more than one liturgical form within a single Rite.

This euphemism was employed by BXVI to make it "tolerable" to the clergy that opposed it adamantly,

It's not a euphemism. He says the Pauline and Johannine Missals are two uses of one Rite because if he had decreed that they were separate Rites (which he could have), then Latin Rite priests would not have a right to celebrate according to the extraordinary use: they'd have to get special permission to celebrate it.

It's like this: since it has never been abrogated, and since it is the traditional liturgy of the Roman Rite, the traditional liturgy is the lawful patrimony of Latin Rite Catholics -- and yet the reformed liturgy is also the lawful patrimony of Latin Rite Catholics. Neither form of liturgy can be lawfully denied a Latin Rite Catholic. Hence there are two uses in a single Rite.

The alternatives were 1) to decree that the old liturgy, while not abrograted, is no longer the liturgy of the Roman Rite, so priests who wish to celebrate it need special permission; or 2) to suppress the reformed Roman Rite, causing unprecedented tumult, scandal, and loss of faith, sending millions of souls to hell. The second option is obviously not a good one, but the first wouldn't be good either, since it would constitute a permanent break between the Roman Church and her liturgical patrimony, relegating adherents to the traditional liturgy to a comparatively small group of Catholics and preventing the traditional liturgy from having any positive effective on celebrations of the reformed Roman Rite.

but since SP there is no reason to speak of mere tolerance but a right of the people to celebrate it as always.

If you will re-read what the Holy Father, you will see that he was referring to the reasons why he was compelled to issue the motu proprio. You can't speak of "since SP" when talking about the reasons the Pope decided to issue SP.

Joe B said...

Of course there is a Catholic culture. You can't have a set of common beliefs as pervasive as Catholicism and not have a great cultural impact. That's obvious.

The Catholic culture prior to VC II was the same culture as at the time of Trent. Trent didn't change the culture. Had little to do with culture. Didn't even get close to putting out enough decrees to change a culture.

And different Catholic rites have nothing to do with the Catholic culture. The peoples of different Catholic rites have so much in common that I feel at home in other rites even now. Not so with Novus Ordo communities. Just one example - contraception is part of and virtually defines that culture (what they do, not what their Priests say) and all the attendant societal problems that come with it. It's a vastly different culture, and the tipping point came right about VC II. Obvious.

Anonymous said...

To Jordanes:
The Pope always speaks as the head of the Church, so I do not buy that he was speaking to the French Catholics, and I cannot accept that "it is impossible to understand his meaning if..", except that he spoke in an esoteric language the meaning of which is only available to the initiate. This is confirmed when you indicate that to understand what the Pope said one has to consider the audience, context, intention, language and translation. Too many variables in order to be considered by the common person, that expects the Pope to speak clearly for everyone.
Your sense of semantics likewise is too subtle, because I have difficulty understanding the difference between "merely" and "simply".
Anyway, this is a strange Pope because as soon as he says something he does otherwise, or corrects himself, such as I see today in what he spoke to the French Episcopacy. Another example of that can be found in his writings, where he sometimes critized Second Vatican Council, specialy the NO, which he called a complete fabrication and consequently an espurious rite, and now defends it staunchly.
As to the existence of a Catholic culture, I must say that if culture is defined as the customs and mores of the people, and not religion, mark me, particularly the Catholic Faith which is universal and conformed by many peoples it is hard to understand how Catholicism can be inculturated by the customs and mores.
As pertains the Roman rite, I slipped when I mentioned different Roman rites, when it should be said "rites of Mass", because the Roman rite refers exclusively to the rite of Rome, and Pius V wanted to unify the various rites aroud this one.

Charles

Jordanes said...

Joe B said: The Catholic culture prior to VC II was the same culture as at the time of Trent.

No, not really. Just a few examples: the generation of Trent knew nothing of the Leonine Prayers, or the traditional Consecration to the Sacred Heart. In the generation of Trent, bishops were very often (if not usually) appointed by monarchs, and usually were absentee (one of Trent's reforms was to deal with that problem). A great deal had changed in Catholic culture internally and externally since Trent.

Not, however, as much as has changed in Catholic culture since Vatican II.

And different Catholic rites have nothing to do with the Catholic culture.

That's impossible. That would require that the rite not be a part of the lives of those living in that particular culture.

The peoples of different Catholic rites have so much in common that I feel at home in other rites even now. Not so with Novus Ordo communities.

That's because the post-Vatican II liturgical reform introduced far more differences in culture than had ever existed before within a single Rite. I can't say the "Novus Ordo" culture isn't Catholic, especially when I consider how Catholics behaved throughout history, but I do think it's "not Catholic enough."

FatherGalambos,o.f.m. said...

Clearly there are two different positions from which the readers respond. Both sides see the picture in front of us differently.

Pope Benedict on that famous December 22, 2006 wrote what he believes and called "hermeneutics of continuum."
Not all readers here adhere and support this position.

Those in Tradition swear that disruption, break, discontinuum occured since 1962.
Modernism, Communism, the greatest evils of our age ceased to be condemned by the Novus Ordo.

The present evidence, as the Holy Father uttered his observations, as the BLOG's present material, suggests that

TRADITION WILL RECEIVE NO SUPPORT IN ITS SMALL STRUCTURE AND FORM, BUT LOSE NO HOPE, THANKS TO GOD'S MERCY GIVING US ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE, THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOW GIVING BIRTH, AN INCREASING LIFE to TRADITION W-I-T-H-I-N THE NOVUS ORDDO STRUCTURE. WATCH TRADITION GROW IN THE N-O-V-U-S O-R-D-O STRUCTURE.

But it is disheartening to observe and it is clearly visible to note that the Holy Father, because of a weakened papacy, speaks from a position of defence.

Cardinal Trois speaks from a position of offence, uttering words that must be challenged, rebuked and reformed.

Clearly the Papacy, not by the Documents of the Council, but by PRACTICE ever since the Council, has been weakened. Can anyone say otherwise?

The Holy Virgin shed tears for us, pleaded for penance and prayer, and as She said, "NO ONE IS LISTENING, neither the good nor the bad."
May I add, neither then nor now.

How many among us, on this site join Mary, Our Mother and Queen in Her Prayers daily? One maybe two?

Make a daily HOLY HOUR OF PREPARATION for the Church and the Holy Father!

Can anyone deny that the Crucifixion of Christ in His Mystical Body is underway?

Yet, let us be strong in the Faith in Our Father's will: our resurrection will come after we die, after the Body of Christ, the Church expires on the Cross.
Dark days are here, only the Light of Faith, no authority, no structure will be left, "no stone on another."
Isolated, pulverized, atomized, left alone, apparently abandoned, but not in Spirit, through our Faith and total surrender to the Father's purging will, shall we rise again!
Mother of Sorrows, teach us to believe, hope and love our God, the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity.
St Pio, St Francis, pray for us.

Jordanes said...

Charles said: The Pope always speaks as the head of the Church, so I do not buy that he was speaking to the French Catholics

So you think the fact that he was on the flight to France, and was specifically asked to say something to reassure French Catholics (no doubt with their bishops in particular view) who fear and loathe the motu proprio, are irrelevant to understanding what he had to say?

Of course now that we have the Holy Father's additional comments on Summorum Pontificum as it specifically applies to the French situation, it is impossible to deny any longer that when he was asked on the plane to say something to French Catholics, he really was addressing his remarks to French Catholics, taking into account their particular circumstances of a dying Church that has a substantial, albeit comparatively small, group of pious and devout Catholics who are affiliated with the SSPX. There is a rift in the French Church, and the Pope wants the bishops to work to heal it.

I cannot accept that "it is impossible to understand his meaning if..", except that he spoke in an esoteric language the meaning of which is only available to the initiate.

Charles, it is impossible to understand ANYONE'S meaning without taking those things into account. It's not about esoteric language or special lingo not accessible to outsiders.

This is confirmed when you indicate that to understand what the Pope said one has to consider the audience, context, intention, language and translation. Too many variables in order to be considered by the common person, that expects the Pope to speak clearly for everyone.

Well, Charles, if you think you are not qualified to interpret what the Pope said, you shouldn't try.

Your sense of semantics likewise is too subtle, because I have difficulty understanding the difference between "merely" and "simply".

My point is that you weren't quoting him accurately. You were paraphrasing him. He did not say the motu proprio is "mere tolerance," he said it is "simply an act of tolerance."

Anyway, this is a strange Pope because as soon as he says something he does otherwise, or corrects himself, such as I see today in what he spoke to the French Episcopacy.

Nothing he said on the plane contradicts what he said to the French bishops. They're in perfect agreement, and you will understand what he said on the plane better if you look at what he said to the bishops, and you will understand what he said to the bishops better if you look at what he said on the plane: the comments are referring to the same thing.

Another example of that can be found in his writings, where he sometimes critized Second Vatican Council, specialy the NO, which he called a complete fabrication and consequently an espurious rite, and now defends it staunchly.

No, he has never called the Novus Ordo a complete fabrication, nor implied that it is spurious. His oft-quoted words about liturgy that is a banal, manufactured, on-the-spot product, were accompanied by comments that asserted the reformed liturgy has some really good things about it: “There is no doubt this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment.” He did not call for the scrapping of Sacrosanctum Consilium and the Pauline Missal, but said we need “a renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church.”