Rorate Caeli

Priest and faithful together

Interesting excerpts of an interview granted by the Master of Papal Liturgical Ceremonies, Mons. Guido Marini, to Italian daily Il Tempo (Sunday edition):

When shall we see Pope Benedict celebrating the Latin Mass according to the extraordinary Roman Rite, that of Saint Pius V? I personally viewed the 'motu proprio' as an act of liberality, of openness, not of closemindedness.

[G.Marini:] "I do not know. Many faithful have availed themselves of this possibility. The Pope will decide, if he considers it appropriate."

[...] The Pope, a year ago, celebrated Mass in the Sistine Chapel with his back turned to the people. Who it was who proposed it to him?

[G. Marini:] "It was I who proposed it to him. The Sistine Chapel is a treasure chest. It seemed a strained effort to alter its beauty b y building an artificial, made-up stage. In the ordinary rite, this celebration 'with the back turned to the people' is a foreseen position. Yet I underline: the back is not turned to the faithful, but the celebrant and the faithful are turned towards the only point that counts, which is the Crucifix."

Tip: Papa Ratzinger blog

18 comments:

New Catholic said...

Or "il Crocifisso", meaning "the Crucified one". We kept it as "crucifix" because the Italian text includes "crocifisso" entirely in lower case.

Iosephus said...

"It was I who proposed it to him."

Don Guido is da man!

Anonymous said...

Then, he should propose that the Holy Father celebrates the Tridentine Mass in public soon.
And, bring back the fanon!

Brendon said...

"Many faithful have availed themselves of this possibility."

Do you think he's implying that he probably wont?

Anonymous said...

By keeping people suspenseful of when the Pope will say the ExtraOrdinary Rite it keeps it in front of the public and gives it time to keep growing little by little around the world.

Postmodernist said...

On this I side with the SSPX. It is high time for the Pope not only to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, but to restore the traditional Catholic faith and doctrine to the Church. In my opinion the Pope should begin with clarifying the ambiguity of Vatican II statements and officially interpreting those claims in the conciliar documents in light of Sacred Tradition.

David A. Werling said...

So... as long as the pope decides not to offer the TLM publicly, he considers it inappropriate to do do so.

Which begs the question: "Why is it inappropriate?"

I'm tired of this cryptic banter. How about a straight answer for once?

How about:

"We have make changes in the rubrics to deal with present conditions, and this will take some time."

Or...

"The Holy Father is too afraid that he will offend the liberal and disobedient prelates he allows to run about in the Church, confusing the faith of Christ's flock."

Or...

"The Holy Father was just throwing a bone to the SSPX; he really doesn't buy any of that Trad stuff."

Without answers, assumptions will be made. No service is being rendered here to Christ's faithful.

Joe Frances said...

While it would be wonderful to have the Holy Father say the ER Mass, I think it might not be a good idea for him to do so, at least at this time. He has taken the course of slow and gradual restoration of liturgical dignity and beauty. Even in these measured steps he has been criticized by the intolerant liberals. Would a bold move to express a personal approval of the ER Mass place into too stark a relief the contrast between His Holiness and his critics? Would that cause them to join forces more definitively? Would those who would like to reverse course, and stunt the growth of the ER be emboldened by such a move on the part of B XVI? I think the Holy Father wants to progress liturgical renewal and restoration of the sacred to a point where perhaps his successor will be in a position to take more definitive steps because of the enormous progress that has been made by gradual action, and may I say non-threatening example, during the glorious reign of this magnificent Pontiff.

Joe B said...

I really don't see a papal TLM making any significant difference. Even if the Holy Father offered one, he might never do it again, and we'd be right back to waiting for Cardinals and bishops to die off in great numbers, hoping against reason that good men will replace them.

I still think it's the Fatima consecration that matters and will signal the turning of the tide. And if the Holy Father won't even take on the smoke of Satan inside the church by offering one TLM, he's probably not the one to do the consecration, either. Personally, I don't think he wants to go back to the TLM, and if he offered one it would be to show there's nothing to fear from tradition, not out of support for the TLM and certainly not out of a desire to elevate tradition above, shall we say, renovation. He still thinks VC II launched the new springtime.

Oh, well, wait till next Pope.

Jordanes said...

he's probably not the one to do the consecration, either.

That would be the consecration that Sister Lucia said was already done. . . .

Stanislas Wojtiech, Stanislawów, Ukraine said...

I am sad to have to say this:

Joseph Ratzinger is and (if not God intervenes) will remain a child of the so-called 2nd Vatican Council, of the reforms and new (mostly heretical) doctrines which came after it, and since 1951 until now has been a pseudo-"conservative" proponent of the 'Nouvelle Théologie', which was called Neo-Modernism in better times for the Church. These neo-modernists, called Humani generis (1950) a "neo-integralist" document, thereby affirming they were heirs of the condemned Tyrell modernists themselves.

This is the theological path of Joseph Ratzinger, who writes that he "respects" the "path of Hans Küng" in theology, and the same Joseph Ratzinger, who proposed not only the ambiguous and mistakenly interpreted as "conservative and orthodox" Dominus Iesus declaration, but also stated that the so-called Orthodox churches are "true particular churches", and defended that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ merely "subsist" in the Roman Catholic Church, rejecting the "est" of Humani generis (par. 27) and Mystici Corporis.

This is their underground denial of Roman Catholic dogma, dogmata, and their battle against the true Holy Roman Church by their infiltration from the inside.

I do not expect any doctrinal Restoration from Benedict XVI - if God does not work a miracle.

It will be a liturgical fish in order to catch the SSPX and make them submit to Vatican II.

The Society of St. Pius X form, more than the less regarded sedevacantist institutes of priests, the bad conscience - so to speak - of the Conciliar older hierarchs, all brought up in the Roman Catholic religion by their parents, and now trying to impose a New Religion, even sometimes under the disguise of being "morally conservative" and "pro-life". One should better remind how a once confessionally Catholic state like the Kingdom of Spain was forced in 1968 to amend its Constitution to "fit" the erroneous declaration Dignitatis humanae, and how that country is now, due to this "healthy laicism" (Joseph Ratzinger) from the modern post-1960 Vatican bureaux.

God bless you all and God bless Rorate Caeli! Blessed New Year.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes said, "That would be the consecration that Sister Lucia said was already done. . . ."

Can you name the specific sourse(s) you are referring to so we can verify?

Thanks

Joe B said...

I think you know the weakness in that statement, Jordanes, as do most of the readers of this blog. If Sister Lucia said it, and that is a huge if since it was passed on by a very liberal second hand source already caught lying about other things she supposedly said, then she contradicted herself, and I would reject that conclusion without much more trustworthy testimony. Her earlier rejection of a consecration not specifically mentioning Russia and not involving the bishops of the world still stands. As with all things post Vatican II, it's hard to say what the percentage of lies in the mix is, such as the lame explanation of the third secret and the claim of Our Lady's use of "etc" to end a statement. But we do have Sister Lucia's clear testimony on this exact issue given prior to Vatican II to rely on. No Russia, no bishops, no consecration.

Jordanes said...

Can you name the specific sourse(s) you are referring to so we can verify?

It is what Cardinal Bertone reported she told him. Some rashly accuse the Cardinal of lying, though. With some Catholics, Fatima seems to form the center and rock of their faith, which is something no private revelation must ever become.

If Sister Lucia said it, and that is a huge if since it was passed on by a very liberal second hand source

Even liberals who believe in the authenticity of the Fatima apparitions are capable of telling the truth.

already caught lying about other things she supposedly said

Careful there. Speaking erroneously is not the same thing as telling a lie.

then she contradicted herself

She wouldn't be the first true seer to unintentionally contradict herself, or to change her mind. The commentary appended to the Third Secret notes the conflicting things Sister Lucia said about it over the years: that doesn't make her a liar, though, just someone whose memory may not have been photographic.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes said, " With some Catholics, Fatima seems to form the center and rock of their faith, which is something no private revelation must ever become."

Be careful Brother that you do not deny the importance of Fatima.

With respect due to the recent post on Cardinal Mindszenty I paste the following from Abe Nantes:

"In the Ukraine, it was Nikita Khrushchev, then First Secretary of the Ukraine Communist Party, who in 1945 unleashed the most terrible of the persecutions against the Church of the Eastern Rite in union with the See of Peter.

«On April 11, 1945», recounts Msgr. Slipyj, «I was arrested with all the other bishops. Less than a year later, more than eight hundred priests had already followed us into captivity. From March 8 to 10, the illegal Synod of Lviv was staged. Under atheist pressure, it proclaimed the “reunification” of the Ukrainian Catholic Church with Orthodoxy, dominated by the Soviet regime.

«This “reunification”, and hence the official liquidation of our Church, was effected by brute force. The bishops were deported to all corners of the Soviet Union. Almost all have since died or been killed in captivity. Each of us had to climb his own Calvary. Now that I am eighty-eight, my memory of Janiseisk, Mordovia, Polaria, Inta and Siberia is fading, but it was a heavy cross at the time. I thank the Almighty for having given me the strength to bear this cross for almost eighteen years and I respectfully pay homage to my ten colleagues in the episcopate, to the more than 1,400 priests and 800 nuns, to the tens of thousands of the faithful who, in captivity, sealed by the sacrifice of their lives their fidelity to the Pope, to the Apostolic Roman See and to the Church Universal.”

Anonymous said...

Further from Abbe Nantes with respect due to the saintly cardinal.

"Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty, Archbishop of Esztergom, remained in the American embassy in Budapest where he had taken refuge when Hungary had been crushed and occupied by Soviet troops in 1956. He did not even leave it in 1960 to take part in his mother’s funeral. The regime’s police would have arrested him immediately.

The five or six residential bishops who still remained in office, were closely monitored and even replaced by a political commissioner. «The people call him “the bishop with a moustache”. It is he, in fact, who rules the diocese: he opens the correspondence, makes decisions, writes in the diocesan bulletin, chooses candidates for the seminary, supervises them, admits them to priestly ordination or dismisses them.» In short, he can «destroy the Church from within while staying in the shadows»17."

...and so it is to this day that the Catholic Church has been polluted with humanistic values and heresies.

Joe B said...

"With some Catholics, Fatima seems to form the center and rock of their faith, which is something no private revelation must ever become."

And some insult Our Lady of Fatima, the Mother of God. Fatima wasn't just another apparition, and you know it. It was the Mother of God commanding you and me and the popes and everybody else. And if you know it to be authentic, which you do, then don't imply they aren't binding. They are. Not by decree of the pope, but by decree of the Mother of God.

"Speaking erroneously is not the same thing as telling a lie."

Cardinal Bertone isn't stupid enough to have made all those statements erroneously, and he isn't the only one to push the Fatima messages off the table. There is a clear pattern of Vatican lying here, presumably to prevent the third secret from destroying their "new springtime" lie.

"The commentary appended to the Third Secret notes the conflicting things Sister Lucia said about it over the years: that doesn't make her a liar, though, just someone whose memory may not have been photographic."

You're the only one suggesting she might have lied.

Jordanes said...

Fatima wasn't just another apparition, and you know it.

No authentic apparition is “just another apparition.”

It was the Mother of God commanding you and me and the popes and everybody else.

No, she did not “command,” she instructed, exhorted, reminded, and requested.

And if you know it to be authentic, which you do, then don't imply they aren't binding.

It is Church doctrine that no private revelation can be binding on the faithful the way the Church’s teachings and laws are. Catholics must believe the faith and adhere to the canons, but no Catholic is bound to accept any private revelation. If an apparition is judged worthy of belief, then the seer must in conscience follow what was revealed, and Catholics ought to give the apparition due respect, but it cannot become an indispensable interpretive lens through which one must view the Church and the world in order to be a good, true Catholic.

Cardinal Bertone isn't stupid enough to have made all those statements erroneously

Speaking erroneously doesn’t make someone “stupid.” Very smart people get things wrong all the time. Much more evidence is needed before the cardinal can be accused of conscious and deliberate deception.

and he isn't the only one to push the Fatima messages off the table.

The Holy Father seems to be of the same opinion as Cardinal Bertone. Is he pushing the Fatima messages off the table too?

There is a clear pattern of Vatican lying here, presumably to prevent the third secret from destroying their "new springtime" lie.

Or maybe they just see things differently. No need to interpret their statements as “a clear pattern of lying.” Maybe they’re just honestly wrong about Fatima (or maybe they’re right).

You're the only one suggesting she might have lied.

I’m certainly not suggesting she might have lied, as is clear from my previous comment, which is that her contradictions do not at all constitute evidence that she lied. However, if you were to be consistent, then you ought to unjustly accuse her of lying the way you’ve unjustly accused Cardinal Bertone (and by implication, the Holy Father).