Rorate Caeli

A forgotten apology

Every priest who offers the holy Sacrifice should recall that during this Sacrifice it is not only he with his community that is praying but the whole Church, which is thus expressing in this sacrament her spiritual unity, among other ways by the use of the approved liturgical text. To call this position "mere insistence on uniformity" would only show ignorance of the objective requirements of authentic unity, and would be a symptom of harmful individualism.

This subordination of the minister, of the celebrant, to the mysterium which has been entrusted to him by the Church for the good of the whole People of God, should also find expression in the observance of the liturgical requirements concerning the celebration of the holy Sacrifice. These refer, for example, to dress, in particular to the vestments worn by the celebrant. Circumstances have of course existed and continue to exist in which the prescriptions do not oblige. We have been greatly moved when reading books written by priests who had been prisoners in extermination camps, with descriptions of Eucharistic Celebrations without the above- mentioned rules, that is to say, without an altar and without vestments. But although in those conditions this was a proof of heroism and deserved profound admiration, nevertheless in normal conditions to ignore the liturgical directives can be interpreted as a lack of respect towards the Eucharist, dictated perhaps by individualism or by an absence of a critical sense concerning current opinions, or by a certain lack of a spirit of faith.

Upon all of us who, through the grace of God, are ministers of the Eucharist, there weighs a particular responsibility for the ideas and attitudes of our brothers and sisters who have been entrusted to our pastoral care. It is our vocation to nurture, above all by personal example, every healthy manifestation of worship towards Christ present and operative in that sacrament of love. May God preserve us from acting otherwise and weakening that worship by "becoming unaccustomed" to various manifestations and forms of eucharistic worship which express a perhaps "traditional" but healthy piety, and which express above all that "sense of the faith" possessed by the whole People of God, as the Second Vatican Council recalled.(70)

As I bring these considerations to an end, I would like to ask forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people.

John Paul II

Dominicae Cenae

February 24, 1980


38 comments:

Ponte said...

huh... from 1980!? LOL!

Joseph Antoniello said...

This is the forgotten JPII.

LeonG said...

"...we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people.'

After such a pronouncement came the Hindu masses with dancing women; the native masses with bare-breasted women; the other inculturated mass forms with various illicit behaviours also well-documented and the rock-and-roll masses particularly the one in Paris for WYD and so on and so on. There was seemingly no end to them.

QuantaCura01 said...

one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament.......AMEN

Anonymous said...

The same document if I recall correctly that spoke against the abuse of girls serving at the altar.

Anonymous said...

"After such a pronouncement came the Hindu masses with dancing women; the native masses with bare-breasted women; the other inculturated mass forms with various illicit behaviours also well-documented and the rock-and-roll masses particularly the one in Paris for WYD and so on and so on. There was seemingly no end to them."

True.

John Paul II seems to have become a different Pope, and a different person after 1986 and his Assisi inter-religious disgrace. Up until then, he was a very decent Pope. Far better than his two immediate predecessors.
But then, after 1986, he became more and more liberal liturgically, and more radically ecumenical. Either this was the REAL JP II, or he was influenced by genuinely evil men.

I'd like to think the later, rather than the former. But whatever way you cut it, it was bad.

Anonymous said...

It is forgotten because of JP II own masses.
Words are taken away by the wind...

Gustavo Ráez-Patiño said...

"May God preserve us from acting otherwise and weakening that worship by "becoming unaccustomed" to various manifestations and forms of eucharistic worship which express a perhaps "traditional" but healthy piety".

Perhaps "traditional" but healthy piety??? It sounds almost as if he was apologizing himself for promoting something "too traditional", or as if "traditional" was the opposite of "healthy". No. This JPII is as modernist as the post-1986 JPII, only perhaps less evident.

M. A. said...

Words are meaningless unless applied in action. Some of his Masses were cause for grave scandal. But I Lord did warn us to to do as they say, not what they do.

The true measure of a man is what he does, not what he says.

Would that our present Holy Father soon celebrate the Old Mass!

Anonymous said...

What made him change diriction in liturgical and ecumenical matters? Any ideas?


John

LeonG said...

The Hindu dancing in Delhi and the Papua New Guinea incident came in 1984 not after 1986. He was always guided by the liberal modernist Conciliar vision and he certainly accelerated this as he moved on through his pontificate. He also had a sense of the theatrical which he exploited using available modern media forms. This cannot be ignored with regard to his "mode d'emploi" of the office bestowed upon him.

Anonymous said...

A completely hypocritical statement by "John Paul the Great" who in 1980, knowing what Benedict XVI knows and has declared, that the Tridentine Mass had never been lawfully abrogated, left it in limbo for many years, to the great anguish of so many priests and laity who were yearning for it desperately.

Jordanes said...

who in 1980, knowing what Benedict XVI knows and has declared, that the Tridentine Mass had never been lawfully abrogated, left it in limbo for many years

Possibly he already knew then it had never been juridically abrogated, although in 1980 the Cardinals' commission that came to that conclusion was yet to be convened for a few more years. Furthermore, it may be that he disagreed with the commission's conclusion and thus did not enact it.

Anonymous said...

How many times must we forgive our brother? Here the man asks for forgiveness, let's give it instead of harboring resentment and scandal.

Paul Haley said...

It's almost that he foresaw the responsibility he would have at his judgment and wanted to apologize in advance for what was to occur. In any case I think he mistakenly viewed his office as incapable of ruling with an iron-hand and legislating away the abuses in the liturgy. Those among us who are used to hard discipline would obviously disagree.

There's not the slightest doubt in my mind that he was influenced too heavily by the modernists and collegial types among his brother bishops. The "flap" with ABL and the SSPX didn't help any to change his mind. He had a chance to reconcile in 1988 but delayed too long and the inevitable happened, a break which the Church has yet to mend.

Anonymous said...

I am a faithful Catholic and I apologize to mankind for our leadership that has failed to live up to the truths of the Catholic Church, to allow novelties and innovation and scandals and calamaties so as to ruin souls.

May God have mercy on us all.

Jordanes said...

It's almost that he foresaw the responsibility he would have at his judgment and wanted to apologize in advance for what was to occur.

That, and he also saw the need to respond to the dire situation then confronting the Church, in which Catholics were being subjected to offenses against the Blessed Sacrament on a daily basis through liturgical abuses, deliberate distortions of the liturgy at the parish level, and the squelching of traditional faith in and devotion to the Eucharist and the Real Presence. Things are still bad now, but in 1980 were far worse.

QuantaCura01 said...

This document also addressed the issue of communion in the hand. It spoke about only consecrated hands touching the eucharist. Just another nice set of words ignored by the majority of bishops, priests and laymen.

Anonymous said...

JPII santo subitu, I hope it never happens.

In my mind after all the liberalism that the Catholic Church went through in his 26 years reigne as pope, he JPII provoked the out control apostasy we are living through today.

May I also point out that the WYD JPII started is not helping young people get close to God or learn and defend their Catholic faith, but on the contrary it is just an excuse to party. The star of the show is the pope not Christ.

Jordanes said...

In my mind after all the liberalism that the Catholic Church went through in his 26 years reigne as pope, he JPII provoked the out control apostasy we are living through today.

I think if you check the historical record, you will find that the current crisis began in the 1960s, not in 1978.

Biggus Headdus said...

"John Paul II seems to have become a different Pope, and a different person after 1986 and his Assisi inter-religious disgrace. Up until then, he was a very decent Pope. Far better than his two immediate predecessors."

What? You never heard the theory of the duplicate JP2, successor of the kidnapped-and-replaced-with-an-imposter-Paul VI, and friend of the evil twin Sr. "Lucy"?

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, I said the "out control"
not the current crisis.

I understand that the Vatican II caused the liberalism we are experiencing today, but in my mind it was during the reign of JPII that we began seeing all "Hindu masses with dancing women; the native masses with bare-breasted women; the other inculturated mass forms with various illicit behaviours also well-documented and the rock-and-roll masses particularly the one in Paris for WYD and so on and so on." as LeonG so well put it. With all do repect to you all but to me the RAMPANT Apostasy came with JPII reign as pope.

Let's not kid ourselves, we are living in an all open Apostasy.

Apostasy has not began in the Catholic Church, apostasy is well underway in the Catholic Church.

Jordanes said...

Okay, Anonymous -- but I still have great difficulty believing that the current apostasy didn't get "out (of) control," as you put it, until John Paul II's pontificate.

M. A. said...

"Things are still bad now, but in 1980 were far worse."
______________________

Ha! Not in my parish. (Well, where I am registered, anyway.)

Into the '80's we still had a very conservative pastor who admirably held back the tide--no women on the altar, no Eucharistic ministers, no shaking of hands, etc.

You should see it now under the pastor who followed and is still there. It won't take much imagination to picture what goes on in name of VII.

The good have gotten better, but the bad continue in their rush to destruction.

Anonymous said...

Well, the fact is that had we had another Pope like Paul VI (God rest his soul) the harm would have been FAR worse. I understand the hurt many posters feel after such tough times in the Church, but in running such a vast institution as the RCC, even with unique lights and the bulwark of infallibility, one man can do only so much. Specifically, he can't be holy for us; he can't be faithful for us; he can't stick with his vocation for us. The defection of priests and bishops was the individual responsibility of those persons who snapped under the madness of the modern world. Yes, JPII, any Pope, bears much responsibility, but he has to trust individual persons, period.

Has anyone here ever run an organization, say, larger than 100 people? You are responsible because you're in the chair, but you need to count on the wills of others.

Hence, our prayers, penance, sanctity: our souls are in our own hands, not the Pope's.

Sean said...

Jordanes said:

“I think if you check the historical record, you will find that the current crisis began in the 1960s, not in 1978.”

John XXIII’s and Paul VI’s pontificates were the catalysts for the revolution. The papacy of John Paul II institutionalized it.

Anonymous (25 February, 2010 00:02)

“Yes, JPII, any Pope, bears much responsibility, but he has to trust individual persons, period.”

John Paul II’s episcopal appointments, with rare exceptions, permitted the radicalizing bishops of the late sixties and seventies to promote those clerical allies who collaborated or remained silent concerning the radicalization. For the most part, the bishops being appointed today are the third generation of the post-conciliar tragedy, marked mostly by an ignorance of Catholic tradition (due to their abysmal seminary training) that leaves them largely incapable of addressing the foundational presuppositions of the revolution which has occurred in the Church.

One example: Archbishop Dolan of New York. He is a very amiable and sincere man. As Archbishop of Milwaukee, however, he went along with the state of Wisconsin’s mandatory morning-after pill law for rape victims in all hospitals, including Catholic institutions. The only Bishop in Wisconsin to dissent was Morlino of Madison (who holds an S.T.D. in Moral Theology from the Gregorianum; he is one of the few moralists who can actually read the traditional manuals in Latin). If one cannot get traditional Catholic moral principles on this issue right, what hope is there of any counter reform?

Emilio said...

Apparently the limit of the charity and level of RESPECT of so called "faithful" and "traditional" Catholics stops when it comes to the memory of the late Pope John Paul II, beloved to me and to countless of my generation, and the instrument used to inspire my conversion and love of the Faith. And I attend the TLM. I am ashamed of the lack of charity and disrespect exhibited in so many of the comments above, and I am honored to stand alone in the defense of the memory of His Holiness. Rest assured that despite the lack of gratitude from those he served, he suffered, labored and prayed for each one of us every single day in his long, fruitful, and painful pontificate. May he pray and aid all of you, and me, with his intercession. I wonder how Pope Benedict would react to many of the comments here about his predecessor and friend?

Sean said...

Emilio, every day that John Paul II was pope I prayed for him. I am very happy he inspired you in your faith. However, to pretend he didn’t cause great pain at times for the faith of others is naive. To pretend he was not a source of scandal for many by things he said and did is to participate in a fantasy. To deny that he did and say things that would have shocked previous sainted Popes (i.e. Pius X) is to indulge in an exercise of self deception.

To criticize John Paul gives no Catholic the right to stop praying for him. But please refrain from condemning those who have a different point of view than you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
What made him change diriction in liturgical and ecumenical matters? Any ideas?

I would presume it was just human weakness. We all have experienced how physiological, psychological, and emotional weakness can prevent us from doing what we would like to do perfectly. St. Paul expressed this himself.

But what a wonderful consolation and confirmation our Lord gives us in the verbal communication of His Holy Vicar!

May Our Lord, Son of God have mercy on all of us.

Patricia

Anonymous said...

What about altar girls...

Anonymous said...

While what the Holy Father said was good, it applies just as much to the priest using the Missal as it does to the Pope in reforming it...

If the Vicar of Christ does not regard the authority of his betters and superiors in matters of the liturgy, then why should the lowly parish priest obey his own?

You reap what you have sown...can be said of the liturgical reform...while of the traditionalists it can be said, that they are reaping what they have not sown!

tradman said...

Sean-A well deserved shout out to you my friend! You nailed it succinctly. Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were the catalysts of the revolution and Pope John Paul II institutionalized it.
While we as Catholics must respect the person of the Holy Father as well as his office, the fact remains that the Church was far worse off in 2005 than it was in 1978. Anyone with open eyes and a small amount of intelligence can see this.
With charity and without being inflammatory it is possible to say that many of the decisions that were made and implemented in that period have caused confusion, scandal and the loss of faith of many.
While we must pray for Pope JP II and all popes, it is not disrepectful to recognize reality for what it is.

LeonG said...

John Paul II encouraged the use of altar girls officially in 1994 from a ruling in 1970. I cannot put it here as it is too long.
The instruction concludes -

" the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has sought to carry out the mandate [use of altar girls] received from the Supreme Pontiff to provide directives to illustrate what is laid down in Canon 230 #2 of the Code of Canon Law and its authentic interpretation, which will shortly be published.

In this way the Bishops will be better able to carry out their mission to be moderators and promoters of liturgical life in their own dioceses, within the framework of the norms in force of the Universal Church.

In deep communion with all the members of your Episcopal Conference. I remain

Yours sincerely in Christ, (Cardinal Antonio Maria Javierre Ortas) Prefect

Paul Haley said...

There is a difference between critcizing the man and criticizing his policies. No one that I know wants to condemn Pope John Paul II. Our Lord the Just One, will decide those matters. Having said that, one cannot sit idly by and watch the Faith which has been passed down, be summarily changed by modern-day prelates. And, I'm not just speaking about John Paul II but all of the popes and their confreres since Pope Pius XII.

At some point in time a Catholic formed before Vatican II must say to himself/herself: "Is this the Faith and are those the practices I was taught to accept?" Remember, St. Paul confronted St. Peter to his face when it seemed advisable to do so and he confronted him not because of who he was but because of what he was doing which seemed totally out of place to St. Paul at the time.

Those of you who were formed since Vatican II cannot understand how shocked and hurt we are by what the Church has done since 1965. The Church did not begin at Vatican II and you must take that into consideration when forming your own personal judgments. For the Church to say the Vatican II did not proclaim any new doctrine, that it was primarily pastoral in nature, and the deny us the Liturgy and the holy practices which for centuries nourished us and our ancestors is hardly "pastoral" IMHO.

That a presumably "nice guy" was involved in this disaster hardly changes the facts and makes us more convinced than ever that Holy Tradition must be restored.

Father G said...

I was formed after Vatican II and I have been and remain deeply shocked, hurt and scandalized by the many of the decisions and actions of the post-conciliar popes and the general direction the Church has taken since 1965. As someone who grew up in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, under the reign of Paul VI and JP II, I've never had any doubt that something was always terribly wrong. Vatican II was a total disaster for the Church and those who helped implement it...those who wrongly interpreted it, the dissent , the abuses...where were Paul VI and JP II when all these things were going on? Why pronounce and promulgate nice sounding documents if you're not going to enforce them? Do nothing about the dissent or turn around and allow and even participate in the abuse? They were on watch...they are responsible. We need to pray that God have mercy on their souls...

LeonG said...

"There is a difference between critcizing the man and criticizing his policies."

Unfortunately, the policies are an extension of the man concerned & his philosophies, together with the disastrous outcome.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"John Paul II encouraged the use of altar girls officially in 1994 from a ruling in 1970."

Leong:

There is a difference between permitting and encouraging. While we agree that the decision to allow altar girls was a major, MAJOR mistake and a terrible break from tradition, to accuse Pope John Paul II of having ENCOURAGED dioceses to implement the permission is to bear false witness. Certainly, Cardinals Medina Estevez and Arinze did what they could do emphasize the importance of having male-only altar servers.

Of course, the nuances don't matter when it comes to doing your favorite thing: attack all the Popes since 1963.

Anonymous said...

A forgotten apology from a (hopefully) soon to be forgotten Pope.