Rorate Caeli

40 years of Missale Romanum and the new Roman Rite - III
Ratzinger: "A fabricated liturgy"


J.A.Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our [20th] century, had defined liturgy in his time as a "liturgy fruit of a development", as it was understood in the West, represented mostly by historical research; probably also contrasting with the Eastern notion which does not view historical evolution and growth in the liturgy, but only the reflection of the eternal liturgy, whose light, throughout the sacred unfolding, enlightens our ever-changing time with its unchanging beauty and grandeur.

Both concepts are legitimate and are not irreconcilable.

What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication began. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced -- as if in a technical production -- by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.

Gamber, with the vigilance of a true visionary and with the fearlessness of a true witness, opposed this falsification and tirelessly taught us the living fullness of a true liturgy, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge of the sources. As a man who knew and who loved history, he showed us the multiple forms of the evolution and of the path of the liturgy; as a man who saw history from the inside, he saw in this development and in the fruit of this development the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, which is not the object of our action, but which may marvelously continue to blossom and to ripen, if we join its mystery intimately.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Preface to the French edition of K. Gamber's
Die Reform der römischen Liturgie: Vorgeschichte und Problematik

26 comments:

Paul Haley said...

Our priest has said that the liturgy developed from early centuries but that it was always organic development and never suppressing what had gone before. Only in modern times has that phenomenon been evident - i.e., changes that were not organic and suppression of what had gone before. The unfortunate fact is that most people born after say 1962 have no memory of what had gone on before and, therefore, no real appreciation for the impact of the changes that were imposed on an unsuspecting populace.

Our holy father himself has called them deformations that were hard to bear and that may be the understatement of all time. But there is hope because he realizes the impact that these changes have had on the life of the church and is trying to reverse the trends toward modernism. I pray for his success in this endeavor.

Dan Hunter said...

"What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication began."

If Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this, then I would assume that he believes this.

Considering the fact that he now, as Supreme Pontiff, has the authority to change the liturgy, why does he not do away with the "fabricated liturgy", which is the Novus Ordo?

After all in the context of his writing he apparently believes that "fabricated", is a bad thing.

If I know something is wrong then I will make every effort to rectify it and make it right, immediately.

This nonsense about "one brick at a time", does not cut the mustard when souls are daily in peril because of the thrown together "fabricated liturgy".

What am I missing here?

New Catholic said...

You are missing the fact that Pope Benedict XVI does not like turmoil he believes may be harmful to the Church - which Paul VI could have avoided if he had introduced the new Ordo as just another option.

And, as he says in the letter to the bishops on Summorum Pontificum, he does not believe that the new Ordo is unholy or essentially wrong - he may consider it fabricated, artificial, but not erroneous.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Pardon me, but Ratzinger didn't know what he was talking about.

The fabrication and the mess that is the Novus Ordo was the direct consequence of Jungmann's ideas:

(1) His "corruption theory," articulated in a 1947 essay, which held that the reaction to Teutonic Arianism led to a corruption of the "primitive" liturgical forms, which should be restored.

(2) His theory on pastoral liturgy, based on the idea that "pastoral care" is the key to understanding the history of the liturgy; liturgy, therefore, must be accommodated to the perceived "needs of the people."

These principles are contradictory and can be played both ways to exclude or include any liturgical practice you want.

Jungmann was a member of Conilium's Study Group 10 which was directly responsible for formulating the new Ordo Missae.

His body should be dug up today, and he should be put on posthumous trial.

New Catholic said...

He used Jungmann in order to develop one point in his argument - just as a Traditionalist may quote Maritain in "Three Reformers" or Guardini in "The Spirit of the Liturgy" without agreeing with every single thing that they wrote or did.

Dan Hunter said...

New Catholic,

If you mean by 'turmoil", the yelling and screaming that goes on amongst the worlds liberals and neo-cons when orthodoxy is promulgated,, then I say, bring on the turmoil!

What happened when Jesus announced, a year before His Crucifixion and Death, that "Unless you eat my Body and drink Mt Blood, you shall not have life within you."?

This threw many of His disciples in to "turmoil" and many of them left Him, saying "This is to hard a saying for us".
Christ did not backpeddle on His statement or call them back to re-explain Himself, Rather, He let them go.

And don't you think that if the Holy Sacrifice of Mass, itself was remade and fabricated in a way that makes it look unholy that it would have lost much of its ability to edify the faithful which in and of itself is not a holy thing.

It seems that we have to come to the conclusion that the Holy Father believes, in theory, that the Novus Ordo, being "fabricated" and slapped together, is not holy in its presentation, but in practice he does not want to manifest his dislike of the NO by eliminating it?

Novus Ordo FTW! said...

Yeah right...

What would be the difference between the abuses we see today and the little changes which composed that "living growing process"?

This article is implicitly saying that is licit for everybody to take part on that "continuous development" while also implying that papal exercise of authority over disciplinary matters is harmful for the church.

Please tell me how does the Novus Ordo differs from St.Justin account of the Mass.

I understand (and tend to agree with) traditionalist about the beauty of the old liturgy, its solemnity, its deepness. But I can not stand such stupid statements as: "Let's pray for NO to be abolished", "NO is the reason behind the church crisis", etc.

That is to be arrogant; that is to be pharisaic ("Please God, teach this ignorant people some latin for them to speak to you in a decent language. Oh and also modal music as tonal music is clearly not suitable for worship.")

The same Pope which gave us Humanae Vitae also gave her the NO; both controversial but inspired by God for the good of His Church.

I really can not understand how some people are so blind to accuse NO or Vatican II to be the causes of our current situation. This chaos was going to happen with or without these events, and if it weren't for them I am sure that the Church would have disappeared from many places over the world.

Btw, it's a shame that such ignominy came from the pen of the then cardinal Ratzinger. This confirms that no matter how bright you are ideology can ruin your thoughts in just a few seconds.

Anonymous said...

Novus Ordo FTW: I hardly know where to begin!

"This confirms that no matter how bright you are idealogy can ruin your thoughts in just a few seconds."

and this little gem:

". . .this chaos would have happened with or without these events. . ."

and this one: ". . .I am sure that the Church would have disappeared from many places. . ."

Pharisaic? Arrogance? Stupid statements?

Really, young lady!

Dan Hunter said...

Novus Ordo FTW,

What documentation can you cite to back up your statement," the Novus Ordo was inspired by God for the good of His Church."?

"Let he who has eyes see, let he who has ears let him hear"

Everything that I have read and heard in the last 30 years points to the fact that priestly vocations, religoius orders both male and female are obliterated and Church attendance is down from 75% in America to about 25%,
since the promulgation of the Ordo Missae.

Is this mass apostacy really inspired by God?

Also, how do you know that the chaos in the Church was going to happen whether or not there was a Second Vatican Council or a Novus Ordo?
Where is your evidence for this?

God love you.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Cekada writes:

"Ratzinger didn't know what he was talking about."

And I suppose a man whose academic formation includes a stint at St. Francis Seminary College and the St. Pius X Econe seminary does? You'll excuse me if, in this matter (as in the matter of whether the See of Peter is vacant and whether Vatican II is a valid Council), I defer to Pope Benedict (or have it your way, Ratzinger), who can run theological circles around the best of the SSPX, let alone the sedevacantist.

Relatedly, I find it somewhat humorous that individuals (usually 30 to 50 years old) who have what is really just an amateurish understanding of traditional, Catholic theology (especially Thomistic theology) claim to have a better grasp of extremely complex questions relating to whether Vatican II represented an authentic development of doctrine, than men--e.g., Ratzinger--who are products of a comprehensive and rigorous system of Catholic education that existed in continental Europe prior to Vatican II and which probably never will be replicated again.

The comparisons to St. Athanasius are all well and good, until you realize that there isn't a thinker among the sedevacantist (or SSPX for that matter) who even begins to approximate St. Athanasius in terms of theological erudition. Once you guys can field a theologian or a philosopher of the caliber of say, oh, Russell Hittinger, then I might start taking you seriously. Until then, I'll recognize my limited knowledge, defer to greater minds, and take the risk that I'm in fact a member of an apostate church. From my perspective, it's the safer bet.

Sorry for the rant. It's just something that's bothered me for sometime.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Novus Ordo FTW! said...

"I really can not understand how some people are so blind to accuse NO or Vatican II to be the causes of our current situation. This chaos was going to happen with or without these events, and if it weren't for them I am sure that the Church would have disappeared from many places over the world."

They have compelling arguments and I am listening. Pre V2 Popes spoke on how to survive the chaos of the world, the conciliar popes want to marry the world. Is this new understanding inspired?

Case in point, have you read recent missionary magazines. Their approach is that the Holy Spirit leads all people to one spot, no need for conversion. That is a fruit of V2. The Jesuits are demanding even more abandonment of the Catholic identity, saying we must adapt to the world even more. For what purpose - humanitarian service, so we can all be friends? This is false charity. The same story is spoken by some main stream Franciscans, of which I am a member :(

What ever happened to penance, prayer and good works which includes conversion?

Perhaps the Church would have disappeared without the V2 novelties, perhaps not. The Lord has allowed the NO, and I thank God there are people who demand(ed) that we don't chop the tree off at the roots. If it wasn't for them we would not here one iota about our Catholic past - except by way of revision and derision largely.

Please read Catholic prophecy and St. Vincent.

Jerry, SFO

Father Anthony Cekada said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Father Anthony Cekada said...

Anonymous said:

"Ratzinger didn't know what he was talking about."

And I suppose a man whose academic formation includes a stint at St. Francis Seminary College and the St. Pius X Econe seminary does?

----------------

Actually, it was my academic formation at St. Robert's Grade School.

This enabled me to read for myself the two Jungmann articles on which I based my comments.

When you calm down, you too can read both articles ("“The Defeat of Teutonic Arianism and the Revolution in Religious Culture in the Early Middle Ages,” and “Pastoral Care — Key to the History of the Liturgy") in Jungmann's Pastoral Liturgy, and argue that, yessiree, Ratzinger (as the original article denominated him) was right, and that Jungmann was the greatest thing since sliced pumpernickel.

But don't forget to sign your article and include your academic credentials

Novus Ordo FTW! said...

Dan,

The only evidence I have to think that the NO was inspired by God is that is was promulgated by the same man which promulgated Humanae Vitae.

I think that the release of this document shows clearly that during his pontificate he did not wanted to "modernize the church" or to make things easier... he just wanted to be faithful to God.

And regarding most of the problems we see in the church today, I think that they are due to secular way of thinking penetrating in the church. The society have been poisoning young minds with relativism, materialsm, etc., it is desacralizating the human being. Young cradle catholics are more proclive to suffer this contamination, mostly because they are cathechized not only by their families but also by the media, and it is very difficult to revert this indoctrination. By the time they are young adults they have one foot on each side... 'I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or hot.'

As I see, this has little to do with V2, it is a battle that we (catechists, priests, families, bishops, etc.) are losing against relativism. We are failing to arouse love for the Church, for the Magisterium, for the Pope, for the Liturgy, etc., in the heart of our children.

Btw, keep in mind that I am from a country were 90% of the population is baptized but only 25% go to mass every sunday, 10% know what an enclycal is, 5% read them and 1% tries to put into practice what they say. The most difficult convertion is that from catholic to Catholic.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous trying to denigrate
Fr. Cekada:

I am no sedevacantist and have some dislike for some of Father's actions but he is well versed on what he comments on. Idiot that I am I argued the point that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated with lay and clergy alike, for the better part of 40 years. Intelligence and education of themselves are no guarantee that who ever possesses them speak or do the right thing.

I always come back to Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran as a perfect example. Some people who refused to believe it happened, when they could no longer deny it, then changed their argument to: He knew better than we what was best for the Catholic Church. Evidently he did not.

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

Mr. LaPietra: Do you recall any of the intelligentsia who told us that the old Mass had been abrogated admitting that they were wrong? I'm not trying to be sarcastic; I'm just wondering if any one of them had the integrity to do so.

Joe B said...

Oh, I don't know that there aren't/weren't some pretty good trad theologians, though none were sedevacantist. Of course, to accuse the trad community of being sedevacantist is pretty ignorant.

Let's see. Cardinal Ottaviani wasn't too ignorant in his own little way. Wasn't he the leading theologian of his day? Von Hildebrandt wasn't bad either. Didn't Pope Paul VI call him a pretty good theologian?

On the other hand, I've read that Pope Benedict would have had his Doctorate in Theology denied by Pope SAINT Pius X because his wasn't a Thomist-based curriculum. Could be just a misunderstanding on my part, though. My background runs more along the lines of Dallas Cowboys football. Tough times, these.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Cekada:

After re-reading my post, I regret using the aggressive and sarcastic tone. I apologize for that.

However, I don't apologize for my general point. Namely, that advocates of sedevacantism and the more extreme critics of the reforms of VII generally are often like the JV high school squad trying to go up against the pros.

Jungmann and his "The Defeat of Teutonic Arianism and the Revolution in Religious Culture in the Early Middle Ages" is a perfect example. From a historical standpoint, I don't think I've heard of anyone seriously contesting his general thesis that Carolingian elements influenced Roman culture--including liturgical practice--starting around the 10th century and that, in turn, Roman culture influenced European culture as a whole. Now, I think Jungmann takes this thesis too far and I certainly don't agree with Jungmann on a lot of the practical conclusions he draws from his historical research. BUT at least he did the hard, scholarly work of going to the original sources and seeing what those texts tell us about the development of the Roman liturgy during the early medieval period.

In contrast, the sedevacantists make bald assertions, reference the titles of a few obscure articles or treatises, arrogantly advise their opponents to go read them, and hope that no one calls their bluff. In any event, they certainly don't have the academic training to engage a scholar like Jungmann on his own terms.

Look, I too lament the loss of the good ol' days. But I think we need to recognize that the theological currents that lead up to VII are a lot deeper than is generally credited by its detractors. You can write them off as simply diabolical and, thereby, convince one or two people in the comments section of a blog. Or, you can do the hard work of wadding through those same currents and directly address the scholars who allegedly lead the Church into error. (And I'm sorry Father, "The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass" just aint going to cut it.)


A.M. LaPietra:

I'm certainly not trying to say that the Papacy or its cheerleaders never make mistakes. Does Fr. Cekada get things right sometimes? Yes. Does the Pope get things wrong sometimes? Sure (not ex cathedra, obviously). That wasn't my point. Rather, my point is about trust and faith (in the natural sense as much as the supernatural). Sure, I agree with the sedevacantists on some matters, but looking out among their ranks, I just don't have faith in them to get the big questions right. My limited time, intelligence, and resources require that I put my faith and trust in others to help me discern truth from error on these complicated issues. So, exercising your prudential judgment, who do you trust? Ratzinger et al. are telling you to put it all--literally--on black. Fr. Cedaka et al. are telling you to put it all on red. For me, it's a no-brainer.

Joe B: I never meant to imply that the entire "trad community" were sedevacantists. I consider myself a traditionalist Catholic.

Signed,

Anon trying to denigrate Fr. Cekada

Anonymous said...

Many who consider themselves "traditional" are, in fact, not. Having an affinity to the "Extraordinary" Mass does not make one traditional.

Peter said...

Anonymous said...
"Many who consider themselves "traditional" are, in fact, not. Having an affinity to the "Extraordinary" Mass does not make one traditional."

Did I miss something, aren't we talking about the CATHOLIC Church not the traditionalIST church?

Beware ists and isms, they tend to suffer anathaemas.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing that with me Peter!

Paul Haley said...

The indictment of the NO is most accurately presented by a man, Cardinal Ottaviani, who as Head of the Holy Office (predecessor of the CDF) was eminently qualified to do so. His rebuke of the NO is entitled "The Ottaviani Intervention" and there are many internet sites carrying the text both of his letter to Pope Paul VI, co-signed bt Cardinal Bacci, and the devastating Study attached to the letter. One such site is at http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/intervention.htm
for those interested.

I mention this only for the benefit of those who studied the Faith after the Council and who may be unaware of the Intervention itself, a wholly remarkable rebuke from a respected Cardinal of the Curia. He, of course, is the same feeble old man nearly blind who had his microphone turned of by the modernist faction at the council as he was defending Tradition. Later on it was said he recanted his rebuke but there is reasonable doubt that this claim is true due to his advanced age and physical condition.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Anonymous who denigrates Fr. Cekada says:

BUT at least [Jungmann] did the hard, scholarly work of going to the original sources and seeing what those texts tell us about the development of the Roman liturgy during the early medieval period.

In contrast, the sedevacantists make bald assertions, reference the titles of a few obscure articles or treatises, arrogantly advise their opponents to go read them, and hope that no one calls their bluff. In any event, they certainly don't have the academic training to engage a scholar like Jungmann on his own terms.

-------------

Ahem — my initial comment was prompted by Ratzinger praising Jungmann, and then implying that the "fabrication" that occurred after Vatican II was inconsistent with Jungmann's vision.

My point was that Jungmann was a bad guy, not a good guy, and that his corruption theory and notion of "pastoral liturgy" produced the very fabrications that Ratzinger complained about.

Dom Alcuin Reed, hardly a sedevacantist, makes the same points about Jungmann in his book on the development of the liturgy before Vatican II.

And the articles I mentioned, by the way, are not obscure. Any liturgy buff will have a copy of Pastoral Liturgy, precisely because the "Teutonic Arianism" article is considered so influential.

Martin Walker said...

Novus Ordo FTW said: "Young cradle catholics are more proclive to suffer this contamination, mostly because they are cathechized not only by their families but also by the media, and it is very difficult to revert this indoctrination. By the time they are young adults they have one foot on each side... 'I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or hot.'"

I agree with your assessment of what happens to cradle Catholics. At this point, 40 years later, many of the parents also do not know the faith. They too were "Catechized" by the media.

For those of us who do, through the grace of our Lord, and our parents (I remember Dad pulling me out of a CCD class when he found out they used the infamous "Christ Among Us" books), my suggestion is simply this - Homeschool.

Even children of faithful Catholics fall away. A good Catholic mom or dad has a hard time competing with public schools, with Planned Parenthood presentations etc telling kids "It's normal to have sex before marriage," and "we know parents are old fashioned." Not to mention the revisionist, Catholic-hating history you get in the schools nowadays.

Homeschool, and do your best to teach your kids authentic history, good ole phonics, etc... and the faith! Teach the faith! Pass it on! Break out the old Baltimore Catechisms :) The "Faith in Life" series isn't bad either.

Lastly, control your television. It doesn't do any good controlling your kids' peer pressure and making sure their friends are good, if they get Britney Spears/Madonna/etc on television. I'm not saying throw it out, though if it gets out of hand do just that. In my household, we have the VCR and DVD player, and our kids get to watch plenty of videos, ones that we approve of. But not the garbage that is on television.

In another thread, someone wrote something like "Obey God, the Church, and the Pope, and have lots of babies". I would add to that, "And homeschool those babies" :)

God Bless,
Martin

Johannes said...

You would never know that the present Bishop of Rome is of the stock of the Rhine because of his singular inability to be blunt; as well we might become confused because he chose to write such a crucial preface in French (?!) for a foreign edition of an originally German book. . .

Now - I know. I am base barbarian and there are Codes and legislation and ectera. But how does a fabricated liturgy hold legal status such that it is applicable in any way as a valid celebration of the Sacraments? I cannot (not "do not") know. It looks like that if a pope, in our age, does something it is done always in duplicate. It may be wicked and legal together; reprehensible and binding at once. We suffer through times in which there are two sides the holy father tries to please together at once. There is the side found most explicit in the Commitorium Peregrini; that is the side that stresses the Regula Fidei. The other is the side of canonism; the quality of Muzzarelli, S.I., or Rivière; but with pentacostalism and without dogma. And the pope cannot please either because he must uphold both and so he only appeases each of them by turns. Never putting an end to our woe - because to do so definitively would still, somehow, fail to do so legally. If Benedictus XVI declared the Novus Ordo officially defunct without hope of rehabilitation (defunctus ex cathedra) today, tomorrow there would be ten, not one, legal ways around the declaration; and in years following: fifty, if not: more, reasons given in erudite wordplay and specialized language to entirely re-institute it - if not compile a new even worse liturgy. What is the significance of a French preface that calls the Novus Ordo fabricated if Summa Pontificum calls it “ordinaria expressio "legis orandi" Ecclessiae catholicae ritus latini est."? A fabricated liturgy is then the legis orandi? Not actually (La Réforme liturgique en question), legally (Summa Pontificum). How long can such a thing last?

"You are missing the fact that Pope Benedict XVI does not like turmoil he believes may be harmful to the Church."

It seems like words as these are only pale justification for ignoring that the present Roman Pontiff belongs to these continental theologians who believe that you can resolve the issue without answering the question. I am very weary of hearing it is so that he may avoid turmoil. The last several popes have accommodated when and where they should have issued interdicts too long. The liturgy is turmoil.

Jordanes said...

Johannes, if you really do not have the ability to know the answer, then there is no point in trying to answer your question, which you should not have bothered to ask.