Rorate Caeli

Cañizares on Summorum

From a letter (in Spanish) sent by the Prefect of Divine Worship, Cardinal Cañizares, to those who took part in the 1st Summorum Pontificum Liturgy Congress, which took place in Madrid in the end of April:

The Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum" is to be understood within this complete view of the teaching and actions of the Holy Father, never as something [that is] isolated or anecdotical, destined solely for the interest of a few and in places with specific problems. Facilitating the access to the official liturgical form of the Roman Rite before the reform caused by the Second Vatican Council is not a concession to nostalgia or to Integrism, it is [rather] a step to favor Ecclesial Communion and an aid to guide and understand the current "ordinary form" of celebrating the Roman Liturgy, within a "hermeneutic of continuity".

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

...it is [rather] a step to favor Ecclesial Communion and an aid to guide and understand the current "ordinary form" of celebrating the Roman Liturgy, within a "hermeneutic of continuity".

God bless Cardinal Canizares, but this kind of thing drives me to distraction.

If the Bugnini script is so precious, whose vernacular version must be retained at all costs, why not just wake up tomorrow and impose the '62 rubrics over it?

A new GIRM. That's all it would take. Jarring, but no more jarring than the new translation that's about to hit Joe Pew between the eyeballs.

Why the persistence with the wishful gobbledygook?

~ Belloc

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

The Novus Ordo rite is a "hermeneutic of discontinuity".

Thomas John said...

Access to the ancient rite conceived as "an aid to guide and understand the current 'ordinary form' of celebrating the Roman Liturgy"

So difficult, apparently impossible, to utter the word 'correct', to guide and CORRECT the current ordinary form of celebrating the Roman Liturgy. Grateful for the staunch rebuff of liturgical experimentation, if not everything hoped for. From what I can see, a little whiff of integrism would seem something else to hope for. A real corrective.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

"It is [rather] a step to favor Ecclesial Communion and an aid to guide and understand the current 'ordinary form' of celebrating the Roman Liturgy, within a 'hermeneutic of continuity'."

Good luck.

The lex credendi of the new rite is ecumenism and modernism.

Might as well say the "hermeneutic of a squaring a circle."

Anonymous said...

A "hermeneutic of squaring a circle" would more aptly apply to explaining how the entire episcopacy could adhere to a false pope, for, what.. almost a decade odd years without a peep from anyone in the Catholic world? As opposed to a Catholic rite, though truly deficient in many respects, which could be reformed: say by slowly mandating ad oritentem, mandatory latin, getting rid of those multiple eucharistic prayers save for the roman canon, introduce some of the prayers of the 1962 missal back into the rubrics and so forth... Yes, it may sound far fetched and drastic, but more drastic things have apparently happened to the Church over the years, no?

Anonymous said...

I am extremely interested that Canizares is commenting. Does this mean CDW is now concerning itself with tridentine rite of the mass?

Have the consititutions been changed so that CDW actually exercises some control over the liturgy, not just the PCED at CDF?

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Anonymous said:

"As opposed to a Catholic rite, though truly deficient in many respects…"

---------

Hmm. The New Mass as a "Catholic rite" that is "truly deficient."

More hermeneutics of squaring circles, alas!

Anonymous said...

Folks, don't jump on the Cardinal's words to harshly, what more could he say. To admit the failure of a life time of work, and to scrap all the vainglory of one's entire existence, for nothing but the sake of God, is a grace, not a human effort.

We are not going to obtain that grace by nasty criticism, but by humble and charitable prayer on our knees with much fasting.

The Lord Jesus has opened the door to the return, and if the TLM becomes widespread we can all hope for this grace.

Once priests see the beauty and holiness of the old rite on a regular basis, the Holy Ghost will open their eyes to see the utter worthlessness of the new rite.

So no need to throw mud balls.

Pray and thank the Lord.

Long-Skirts said...

Canizares said..

...the Second Vatican Council is not a concession to nostalgia or to Integrism, it is [rather] a step to favor Ecclesial Communion and an aid to guide and understand the current "ordinary form"

THE
GOSPEL
NARRATIVES

For neurotic-psychotic
“Attached” to the old,
We give you a hireling
To take care your fold.

No need for the shepherds,
Who seem so much keener,
They’ll tempt you with dreams
Of pastures much greener

And say not to mimic
Past, tolerant-barters,
So heads were cut off,
Who could dialogue with martyrs?

The shepherds tell fables,
‘Bout a man, hated, hailed,
Like you, just “attached”,
Don’t believe He was nailed!

Cosmos said...

The Church fathers of the mid 20th century betrayed their heritage not only be re-writing the liturgy, but by imposing a new vision of hierarchy which followed the path of the humanist civil law systems of Europe. Those systems ignore tradition and replace it with "reason" and "expertise." Legal experts replaced local common law with an absolutely binding positivist legal codes that operated from the top down. The vision that emerged among both conservative and liberal Catholics was Pope as autocrat rather than father/shepherd/protector of the tradition.

As painful as it is, this Pope knows he can't simply undo all of the sad changes within the Church things without both (1) seriously undermining the people's trust in the Church and (2) reinforcing the equally insidious idea that each new "regime"/"administration" can shape the Church as it sees fit.

Anonymous said...

JMJ

Perhaps Anthony Cekada could provide more than "ipse dixit" statements about the lack of catholicity in the Modern Rite: who died and made this man Pope?

Squaring a circle, huh? Have you read Aristotle's comments regarding Pythagoras' proofs, or any philosophical statement about the difference between such "geometric proofs" and the assurance of faith, as described by St. Thomas Aquinas?

The Lex Credendi of the New Rite would be found in which section of which document? Or, whence did you draw your personal/private conclusion?

I am shocked that such baseless statements are allowed to stand unchallenged in such a "rational" age.

I'll take my chances with the successor of Peter, who was ordained and a peritus before most *bleep* priests were born.

Anonymous said...

I am in favor of both forms of the roman liturgy, both are necesary in the world of today.
I can understand that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, in obedience to the succesor of Saint Peter, obedience that brings me graces from Heaven, obedience that makes me believe that no matter how many problems the Church has, we catholics should be always with the Holy Father and never attacking him on things that belong to his competence, but to help him to aply what he and his predecesors have said in faith and costumes, specially liturgical costumes, fighting whatever we can fight against the corrupt bishops in which the church seems to have everywhere, that do not obey the Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

"...a 'Catholic rite' that is 'truly deficient.'

More hermeneutics of squaring circles, alas!"

Take "Catholic rite" and insert "Pope Pius XII Holy Week Liturgical Reforms" and I think you'll be a little more sympathetic towards hermeneutics, Rev.

Anonymous said...

I see that the "theology of holy sloth" still has many advocates.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Anonymous said:

“Perhaps Anthony Cekada could provide more than ‘ipse dixit’ statements about the lack of Catholicity in the modern rite.… The Lex Credendi of the new rite would be found in what section of the document?”

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

1. The Lex Credendi of the new rite is found in its words (the Ordo Missae, sacramentary, lectionary) and its gestures (“rubrics” in the text, and norms laid down in the General Instruction, etc).

2. An examination of these texts and gestures reveal that the New Mass systematically eliminated various Catholic doctrines contrary to ecumenism or modernism, as well as introducing other doctrinal errors which positively corrupt the faith.

A blog is not the proper forum for demonstrating all this. Check out my study of the new orations (Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass), and the Ottaviani Intervention for some specifics.

If you want a reading list, e-mail me via www.traditionalmass.org

Henricus said...

Speaking as one who attends the TLM weekly, and soon daily, Deo gratias – both available to me and others due in large part to my own personal support and persistence – I must say that the preceding commenters in this thread all have their heads in the sand.

The present pope so gloriously reigning has no desire or intention to restore generally the TLM. Whatever his private and personal preference may be, his public and papal objective for the TLM is solely for it to provide a model for the reform of the Novus Ordo, which will continue to be the Mass of the great mass of Catholics.

Any other view or expectation is so unrealistic as to be quixotic. We’d all better get used to it. For instance, we could then quit worrying about when the Pope will celebrate the TLM publicly. Better to forget about it, since it’s not going to happen.

Anonymous said...

Anthony Cekada is right: this is not the place for the discussion - Fr. Brian Harrison has offered many times to provide such a forum, and his detractors and would-be-debaters refuse the offer. The same Fr. Harrison provides a good reading list that shows from Scripture, Tradition and History that sede-vacantist theories are without a firm foundation - similar to the claims of the protestants regarding corruption of "the church".

As for the Lex Credendi, as found in the Ordo Missae, the sacramentary, or the lectionary, the whole world and I are waiting still for something other than "Robber Church", or even, "The Problems with the Prayers of the New Mass", that might prove your "ipse dixit" (or perhaps "pauci dixerunt") claims about the Church and the Papacy. I doubt that anyone on this blog denies that the New Liturgy is deficient in one way or another, but you and others have yet to prove that this deficiency, in whatever it may consist, negates the validity or even liceity of the New Rite. What about the remains of Scripture and Tradition in the New Rite, specifically as documented by Fr. Harrison? Do the frequent explicit references to hell, Petrine Primacy, and the evils of sins against the commandments help or hinder ecumenism or modernism? Who is to make that decision/judgment. Surely you know - from the traditional philosophical formation for the Church's clergy - the different criteria for different judgments.

I would be interested to see the well-documented [introduction of] other doctrinal errors which positively corrupt the faith, but I seriously doubt that it is forthcoming: and again, honestly considering whatever proof you may give, who will authoritatively judge that matter? You? Others?

Gracias a Dios, this Cardinal and our present Holy Father understand the battle in which the Church is engaged. I believe, with Divine and Catholic Faith, that the God will provide His shepherds with the grace to lead us through even this: history has given us such "rationes credendi" that Our Lord's words in St. John's Gospel and St. Paul's in 1 Tim. 3:15 will not fail or be contradicted.

Anonymous said...

Some of the comments on this post border on the absurd, and frequently cross the line into delusional.

For all the talk about restoring the true Catholic Mass, one hardly reads a comment with truly Catholic sensibilities.

The fact of the matter is that for all its deficiencies, and all of the problems it has wrought in the life of the Church, the ordinary form is both orthodox and valid. (Just for the record, I attend the extraordinary form.)

The Combox Magisterium pretends to have some sort of secret Gnostic wisdom and *know better* than the actual people tasked with governing the Church. In some cases, they probably do, but that's not the point.

The problem is the spirit of schism and Protestantism, setting oneself in conscious, scnadalous, and dangerous opposition to the Holy Father and the bishops. Yes, fraternal correction can be appropriate. But charity and humility must guide such actions. Those virtues are not present in many of these comments.

The real irony is that for all the talk of a truly "Catholic" Mass, many of its attendants will in fact actually be de facto Protestants.

If we want real reform, we must have a true ecclesial sense, not a brittle devotion to a particular form of the Mass.

That is why the FSSP and the ICKSP are having more of an effect on the life of the Church within communion, than the SSPX will ever have outside of it. The former are actually moving the doctrinal solution forward by the presence of their canonical solution.

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

"That is why the FSSP and the ICKSP are having more of an effect on the life of the Church within communion, than the SSPX will ever have outside of it. The former are actually moving the doctrinal solution forward by the presence of their canonical solution."

What a joke! Who is dealing with Rome right now regarding doctrine?

The FSSP et al. have been stifled in defending the doctrine of the Church against Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect Br. Anthony, Summorum Pontificum, along with the FSSP, and ICKSP's presence within the communion is greatly preparing the hearts of the faithful to receive the Tradition and opening them to it.

Their presence is one major reason why the Church is even ready to have these discussions. What people forget is that this is the Catholic Church where things take time and need to happen organically, which is why so many in the Combox magisterium want the 1962 Missal reimposed on everyone and the documents of the V2 scrapped. Both of which would be completely imprudent and genuinely harmful for souls, which, as the Holy Father notes in his address to the bishops of Portugal should be the number one concern of pastors.

In the long-term, a return to tradition is the best for the life of the Church, but it must happen organically. And that is okay, especially after SP.

The only folks who demand it immediately do so because they believe both the council and the ordinary form are heretical. That position of course is pure heterodoxy (and implies sedevacantism), and we should never stop reminding others of it.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Anonymous #1 said:

“I doubt that anyone on this blog denies that the New Liturgy is deficient in one way or another, but you and others have yet to prove that this deficiency, in whatever it may consist, negates the validity or even liceity of the New Rite…”

Anonymous #2 said:

“The fact of the matter is that for all its deficiencies, and all of the problems it has wrought in the life of the Church, the ordinary form is both orthodox and valid.”

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

There are two issues to separate here:

1. How do you or anyone else on this blog define or understand “deficient”? Or the “problems [the new rite] has wrought in the life of the Church”?

Many, like me (I suppose) understand this to mean that the new liturgy is destructive to Catholic doctrine on many points, and that it prescribes or allows practices that are gravely irreverent.

I think that there is no difficulty proving this in a proper forum.

2. Validity and liceity are not necessarily connected with the destructive nature of the new rite as regards Catholic doctrine and Eucharistic piety.

But the deficiency mentioned in point 1 is bad enough.

papist said...

"How do you or anyone else on this blog define or understand 'deficient'?"

I used the word ''deficient'' in reference to a ''Catholic rite'' having in mind something not being evil itself, but given the circumstances lends itself to impiety.

Communion in the Hand - though it was practiced at one point (and so cannot be considered evil itself), circumstances today lend it to serious abuses.

Or, take the historical example of indulgences, and how at one point the Church approved the practice of granting indulgences in exchange for donations. A practice that so lent itself to abuse that it was later condemned by the Council of Trent.

Anonymous said...

Regarding one 'Anonymous' message:

While I am definitely no fan of Fr. 'Adoremus' Harrison I agree that the matter of sedevacantism needs a separate blog or list in which the representatives of the two sides can prove to one another and to the rest of us that they think about almost nothing else and hve no lives. This forum is not an ideal place for the discussion because advocates of one side can and will sneak onto it without the representatives of the other side knowing about it.

Perhaps someone should send an e-mail to Fr. Harrison or, better yet, to the S.S.P.X . . . . Then the two sides could do battle and the rest of us could read their exchange as a salve to insomnia.


If Jordanes wants to moderate this discussion, I hereby make him a one-time offer of one free crate of aspirins. He'll have to supply his own water to wash it down with but, then, that's free, unlike our time.


P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I must say that I admire Jordanes for his determination and charity in moderating this blog. It's bad enough having to review the drivel spewed out by blabbermouths like me, but if he plans to moderate exchanges on sedevacantism or Feeneyitism, he might very well prove to be a saint.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

One last point about sedevacantism:

I don't want to leave anyone here with the wrong impression. I have read most of Fr. Cekada's arguments on the subject and I think that they are extremely well-argued and well-written too. Fr. Cekada is not some self-appointed amateur from the blogosphere but a real expert. Fr. Cekada 'knows his stuff'. But I just cannot imagine how a blog like this can possibly do justice to this issue given how *much* has been written on it over the years. It needs a thread or a blog in which the parties can 'go at it' back and forth forever.

I'm told that, somewhere out there, there is a forum for atheists and theists. They have been arguing back and forth for something like twelve years on the Internet. I've heard that, on Pascal's Wager alone, there have been thousands of exchanges. Is that really where we want to take Rorate Cœli? I always tell my students to consider the scope of their papers at the outset.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"1. How do you or anyone else on this blog define or understand “deficient”? Or the “problems [the new rite] has wrought in the life of the Church”?"

Father Cekada:
We don't, only the Holy Father can define if the New Mass is defiicient or not.

And I might add that apparently Pope Benedict XVI does not think the New Mass is deficient to the point of unorthodoxy for the simple reason that His Holiness offers it.
God bless
Dan Hunter

Anonymous said...

Anon 13:13

And where might one find Fr. Harrison's list?

I've yet to read anything anywhere that has sufficiently covered all of the controversy without dismissing it in a simplistic fashion.

Delphina

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Anonymous PKTP said:

"While I am definitely no fan of Fr. 'Adoremus' Harrison I agree that the matter of sedevacantism needs a separate blog or list in which the representatives of the two sides can prove to one another and to the rest of us that they think about almost nothing else and hve no lives."

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

I'm not sure how sedevacantism surfaced here, but I think that a blog is too informal a forum for dealing in any depth with such a complex topic.

Better to go the research articles route.

Also saves on aspirin bills for moderators.

Anonymous said...

Anthony Cekada is right: this is not the place for the discussion

Anonymous: It's Father Anthony Cekada - validly ordained by a Catholic bishop. Whether or not you agree with his theology the dignity of his priesthood demands your respect!

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Papist said…

"I used the word ''deficient'' in reference to a ''Catholic rite' having in mind something not being evil itself, but given the circumstances lends itself to impiety."

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

And again, this assessment of the Mass of Paul VI (even apart from other disputed issues such as validity, liceity, overt heresy, implicit heresy, gross sacrilege, threats to Catholic doctrine, etc.) is bad enough.

To say the rite "lends itself to impiety" is a very severe conclusion indeed. For the Council of Trent levied an anathema against anyone who says that the ceremonies of the Mass that the Church uses are "incentives to impiety." (irritabula impietatis) DZ 954.

But the starting point for the whole trad resistance was PRECISELY this: that the New Mass was doctrinal poison and one, big, fat incentive to impiety.

Forty years later, this tends to be ignored because of vogue for conducting the new rite with eye-popping externals (Baroque chasubles worn ad orientem in steak-house style suburban American churches) and the rehabilitation of a form of the old rite (oh, that eye-catching cappa magna!).

But the fundamental difference between the two rites remains, and it is on the level of theology and piety.

With this, I will thank the moderators for their indulgence and retire from the fray!

M. A. said...

Father Cekada,

You could do so much good were you to step inside where the action is.

God bless!

papist said...

"To say the rite "lends itself to impiety" is a very severe conclusion indeed. For the Council of Trent levied an anathema against anyone who says that the ceremonies of the Mass that the Church uses are "incentives to impiety." (irritabula impietatis) DZ 954."

It obviously hasn't stopped you from describing Pope Pius XII's holy week reforms as "a road to the New Mass" and "modernist oriented" (incentives towards impiety anyone?) -- and this to such a degree that you believe you are justified in rejecting them today!

[Perhaps that so-called hermeneutics of squaring circles can come in handy now? ;-)]

My position, and I believe you could agree in theory, is that the Church cannot give us rites and laws that are intrinsically evil but only accidentally so given the circumstances. The above canon was directed towards the views of the reformers who held that our Catholic rites were actually superstitious, and nothing more. It did not deal with the more thorny issue of whether or not the Church can actually promulgate rites that are proven to be harmful though not intrinsically so. As an example, I gave the case of indulgences in exchange for donations. It happened with the Church's approval, and later the Church condemned it.

John McFarland said...

Sedevacantism and anti-sedevacantism have nothing to do with the evaluation of the New Mass.

I have not read Father Cekada's work, but I suspect that there's not much difference between it and the SSPX's little study, "The Problems of the Liturgical Reform."

Be that as it may, it doesn't require rocket science to see that the New Mass embodies changes intended to make the Mass from the millennium-old embodiment of the doctrine of the Mass as defined at Trent, into something else. It's a tougher job to understand that "something else," but if the intent is to neuter Trent in practice, it can't be anything good.

I would also say that although I am not a sedevacantist, anyone who hasn't been tempted to sedevacantism just doesn't understand what we're up against, as regards the Mass and everything else about the V2 regime.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Mr. McFarland's last post, except for the closing paragraph: one does not need to have been tempted by sedevacantism to hold the positions about the Mass that he does (and I do, frankly). But I'll put that down to hyperbole. We certainly can say that any traditionalist can at least understand what might lead someone to sedevacantism. The New Mass is Protestant in spirit and clearly Protestant in implication. One does not depart from clear expression on propitiatory Sacrifice unless one wishes to imply some other kind. Remarkable how the New Mass parallels Cranmeer's Satanic Order, not to mention Luther's.

P.K.T.P.

papist said...

"We certainly can say that any traditionalist can at least understand what might lead someone to sedevacantism."

Definitely. If one believes the Novus Ordo Missae to be protestant, modernist, syncretist, or what have you, it's only eminently reasonable to believe that such a rite could not have come from the Catholic Church or a valid Pope.

Anonymous said...

Papist wrote:

"It obviously hasn't stopped you [Fr. Anthony Cekada] from describing Pope Pius XII's holy week reforms as "a road to the New Mass" and "modernist oriented" (incentives towards impiety anyone?)"

Which is precisely what the 1956 reforms were, a sort of trial run for later measures.

Henricus said...

Anonymous @ 7:28 wrote: "Which is precisely what the 1956 reforms were, a sort of trial run for later measures."

Except for the fact that they were also an end in themselves, as Venerable Pius XII plainly felt that the rites of the Sacred Triduum required revision to play a more accessible role in the spiritual life of the Church. As he felt that 1958 liturgical instruction needed to encourage the actuosa participatio that St. Pius X had urged, but had still not been generally or widely attained.

Ironically, it may be largely a result of Vatican II that we now see at the typical EF high Mass the prayerful "active participation" which most of us don't remember as being common before the Council. (But which is not, of course, seen at the typical Novus Ordo Mass with its "doing stuff" foolishness instead.)

Father Anthony Cekada said...

I really must intervene again to correct one very important point:

Regarding the canon of Trent I quoted (DZ 954), Papist said:

“The above canon … did not deal with the more thorny issue of whether or not the Church can actually promulgate rites that are proven to be harmful…”

Sorry, but pre-Vatican II dogmatic theologians such as Schultes (De Ecclesia Catholica, 315) Zubizarreta (Theol. Dogm.-Scholastica,1:486) and Salaverri (Sac. Theol. Summa 1:723), teach that that’s exactly what the canon dealt with and they adduce similar decrees to make the same point.

This has been demonstrated at some length elsewhere.

Basta!

Anonymous said...

The NO was never promulgated as a rite, therefore the Church is not responsible for it, errant clerics are.

Promulgation requires a specific canonical act wherein the rite is promulgated as a rite.

All the NO can claim is the decree Missale Romanum of Paul VI, which asks that certain things be added to the new missal, and Benedict XVI's decree which has no binding clause, at its end, establishing anythinng as definitive. Its more of a drawing a line in the sand.

Therefore you have pontifs using their authority in matters which are proximate to promulgation, but are not formally promulgation.

Therefore, Fr. Chekeda is wrong again, just like he was about the new rite of episcopal consecration.

papist said...

"Sorry, but pre-Vatican II dogmatic theologians such as Schultes (De Ecclesia Catholica, 315) Zubizarreta (Theol. Dogm.-Scholastica,1:486) and Salaverri (Sac. Theol. Summa 1:723), teach that that’s exactly what the canon dealt with and they adduce similar decrees to make the same point."

I agree with them, Father [http://www.stjosephschurch.net/pope.htm], which is why I was careful to say "[the canon from Trent] did not deal with the more thorny issue of whether or not the Church can actually promulgate rites that are proven to be harmful though not intrinsically so."

That the Church cannot give us a rite that "would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls" (Van Noort) is theologically certain.

But like I said I think you could agree with that distinction - given you reject the holy week reforms of Pope Pius XII...

Picard said...

I am not a "sedevacantist" nor "-privatist" - but all respect for/re Rev. Fr. Cekada because of his clear, calm and serious style of discussion here. Thanks and bravo!

Re the question of several "anonymi" here: first of all get a name and do not post as anonymi, then we can discuss! And yes, there are good arguments that show the deficiency and evelness of the NOM. But: get a name, guys!!