Rorate Caeli

Message of the Holy Father at the end of the International Eucharistic Congress

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

With great affection in the Lord, I greet all of you who have gathered in Dublin for the Fiftieth International Eucharistic Congress, especially Cardinal Brady, Archbishop Martin, the clergy, religious and faithful of Ireland, and all of you who have come from afar to support the Irish Church with your presence and prayers.

The theme of the Congress – Communion with Christ and with One Another – leads us to reflect upon the Church as a mystery of fellowship with the Lord and with all the members of his body. From the earliest times the notion of koinonia or communio has been at the core of the Church’s understanding of herself, her relationship to Christ her founder, and the sacraments she celebrates, above all the Eucharist. Through our Baptism, we are incorporated into Christ’s death, reborn into the great family of the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ; through Confirmation we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit; and by our sharing in the Eucharist, we come into communion with Christ and each other visibly here on earth. We also receive the pledge of eternal life to come.

The Congress also occurs at a time when the Church throughout the world is preparing to celebrate the Year of Faith to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Second Vatican Council, an event which launched the most extensive renewal of the Roman Rite ever known. Based upon a deepening appreciation of the sources of the liturgy, the Council promoted the full and active participation of the faithful in the Eucharistic sacrifice. At our distance today from the Council Fathers’ expressed desires regarding liturgical renewal, and in the light of the universal Church’s experience in the intervening period, it is clear that a great deal has been achieved; but it is equally clear that there have been many misunderstandings and irregularities. The renewal of external forms, desired by the Council Fathers, was intended to make it easier to enter into the inner depth of the mystery. Its true purpose was to lead people to a personal encounter with the Lord, present in the Eucharist, and thus with the living God, so that through this contact with Christ’s love, the love of his brothers and sisters for one another might also grow. Yet not infrequently, the revision of liturgical forms has remained at an external level, and "active participation" has been confused with external activity. Hence much still remains to be done on the path of real liturgical renewal. In a changed world, increasingly fixated on material things, we must learn to recognize anew the mysterious presence of the Risen Lord, which alone can give breadth and depth to our life. 


The Eucharist is the worship of the whole Church, but it also requires the full engagement of each individual Christian in the Church’s mission; it contains a call to be the holy people of God, but also one to individual holiness; it is to be celebrated with great joy and simplicity, but also as worthily and reverently as possible; it invites us to repent of our sins, but also to forgive our brothers and sisters; it binds us together in the Spirit, but it also commands us in the same Spirit to bring the good news of salvation to others.

Moreover, the Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, his body and blood given in the new and eternal covenant for the forgiveness of sins and the transformation of the world. Ireland has been shaped by the Mass at the deepest level for centuries, and by its power and grace generations of monks, martyrs and missionaries have heroically lived the faith at home and spread the Good News of God’s love and forgiveness well beyond your shores. You are the heirs to a Church that has been a mighty force for good in the world, and which has given a profound and enduring love of Christ and his blessed Mother to many, many others. Your forebears in the Church in Ireland knew how to strive for holiness and constancy in their personal lives, how to preach the joy that comes from the Gospel, how to promote the importance of belonging to the universal Church in communion with the See of Peter, and how to pass on a love of the faith and Christian virtue to other generations. Our Catholic faith, imbued with a radical sense of God’s presence, caught up in the beauty of his creation all around us, and purified through personal penance and awareness of God’s forgiveness, is a legacy that is surely perfected and nourished when regularly placed on the Lord’s altar at the sacrifice of the Mass. Thankfulness and joy at such a great history of faith and love have recently been shaken in an appalling way by the revelation of sins committed by priests and consecrated persons against people entrusted to their care. Instead of showing them the path towards Christ, towards God, instead of bearing witness to his goodness, they abused people and undermined the credibility of the Church’s message. How are we to explain the fact that people who regularly received the Lord’s body and confessed their sins in the sacrament of Penance have offended in this way? It remains a mystery. Yet evidently, their Christianity was no longer nourished by joyful encounter with Jesus Christ: it had become merely a matter of habit. The work of the Council was really meant to overcome this form of Christianity and to rediscover the faith as a deep personal friendship with the goodness of Jesus Christ. The Eucharistic Congress has a similar aim. Here we wish to encounter the Risen Lord. We ask him to touch us deeply. May he who breathed on the Apostles at Easter, communicating his Spirit to them, likewise bestow upon us his breath, the power of the Holy Spirit, and so help us to become true witnesses to his love, witnesses to the truth. His truth is love. Christ’s love is truth.

My dear brothers and sisters, I pray that the Congress will be for each of you a spiritually fruitful experience of communion with Christ and his Church. At the same time, I would like to invite you to join me in praying for God’s blessing upon the next International Eucharistic Congress, which will take place in 2016 in the city of Cebu! To the people of the Philippines I send warm greetings and an assurance of my closeness in prayer during the period of preparation for this great ecclesial gathering. I am confident that it will bring lasting spiritual renewal not only to them but to all the participants from across the globe. In the meantime, I commend everyone taking part in the present Congress to the loving protection of Mary, Mother of God, and to Saint Patrick, the great patron of Ireland; and, as a token of joy and peace in the Lord, I willingly impart my Apostolic Blessing.

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI [Source]

40 comments:

John Fisher said...

"Second Vatican Council, an event which launched the most extensive renewal of the Roman Rite ever known.". When will authority accept the deform of the liturgy has been extensive and it is not a renewal but a mutation. The liturgy has a certain dna that limits and shapes it. When it is more the creation of a loaded committee whose guiding principls are seen to be dubious all liturgical authority is lost. Authority may bang on and on about how great it is...but authority shhots itself in the foot. The antiquity and continuity os the form of Mass is gone. What we have is a childrens game! The Novuis Ordo is NOT the Old Mass in English. It is a creation...how sad! A creation just as surely of that as Luther and Cramer and Calvin. But in this case it is real authority ordering an unacceptable change!

S. Patrick said...

Ireland has been shaped by the Mass at the deepest level for centuries, and by its power and grace generations of monks, martyrs and missionaries have heroically lived the faith at home and spread the Good News of God’s love and forgiveness well beyond your shores.

Was that before or after the "deep renewal" of the liturgy? When will the recognize the devastating results of their experiment?

Mike said...

This morning at a Novus Ordo Mass a dad and his son and daughter were in front of us. Dad and sister with sunglasses on their heads. Son rumpled. Both kids, late teens, early twenties. Dad and son in shorts. Laughter, jokes, during Consecration. Naturally, held hands during Our Father.

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.

The music was banal. Our minister of music (!) has banned chant and Latin hymns.

This is renewal?

NIANTIC said...

I love our Holy Father Benedict XVl and am very grateful for the fact that he is trying to put the brakes on the Vll "experiment".
Yet he is deeply committed to Vll as well as to the Novus Ordo, eventhough he has called the NO "banal" and a manufactured Liturgy. A contradiction of position if there ever was one. On the one hand it is not so very good but on the other I am going to keep it in place. He has given us back the True Eternal Mass and gives it a certain amount of praise, yet has not offered this Mass himself. He wishes to lead by example but he should know that the Modernist bishops and priests will not follow his lead.

What is needed is for the Vicar of Christ to issue an Encyclical stating clearly all the abuses which are occurring everywhere and their immediate correction. Examples: priests to face ad orientem, communion on the tongue while kneeling, no EM's or women in the sanctuary, Tabernacle in the center, altar rails, use of chant, consecration in latin, elimination of campfire songs. Those would be the absolute minimum as far as the NO is concerned. In addition all priests, bishops and seminarians should be required to learn to offer the True Mass and this Mass must be offered in every parish where there are scheduled two or more Masses Sunday's. Give the Church one year to implement these corrections. No exemptions, no excuses. Now that would be a breath of fresh air and I believe a true new Springtime, so desired they say by Vll. Such bold action and demands , we should be able to expect from the Vicar of Christ. Pax et bonum.

authoressaurus said...

"New Liturgy" does not - with ANY degree of assurance - lead to new understanding. In this case, it has lead to disinterest. Scap it. Cut bait. Move on. Back to the Future.

Mark J said...

The Church is still in the grip of a Liturgical Winter. But whenever a new TLM is offered, it is like the first buds of spring showing forth life through the snow. We need to support the TLM any way we can, for this is the future of the Church. We may have to wait for the next Pope to see a Pontifical Mass on the main altar of St. Peter's celebrated by the Holy Father, but it will happen. As surely as Spring follows Winter and Day follows Night. Keep praying... Modernism will be vanquished, like all other heresies that have attacked the Church throughout the ages. The Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end. The War was already won on the Cross. But the battles will continue until the end of time.

Brian said...

"active participation" has been confused with external activity . . . we must learn to recognize anew the mysterious presence of the Risen Lord, which alone can give breadth and depth to our life.

Of course the Church's most devastating "error" of our lifetime was to look to Bugnini to show the way to renewal, rather than St. John of the Cross.

Katie Rose said...

Hello. I was deeply uplifted to read the words of the Holy Father, words of humility and sorrow regarding the sins of priests and words of missionary zeal calling all Catholics to saintly lives.

And, then I read the comments and was saddened by the criticism. I am a young and faithful Catholic who was called to conversion by the witness and words of Blessed Pope John Paul II, and I love love love the Church. I know that each of you do, too. What saddens me, however, is that you equate Pope Benedict's words (about the renewal that Vatican II sought) with the liturgical abuses in our US parishes.

Yes, we have horrible, and often, heretical music. Yes, we have priests who don't understand their vocations. And, yes, we have a largely uncatechized population. But, this is not the fault of the Holy Father, nor the Council documents.

Have each of us read Sacrosanctum Concilium? The renewal that it calls for is a return to many of the ancient and Oriental practices of the Mass, such as Gregorian chant, veneration of images, the sung proclamation of Sacred Scripture, and so forth. If our bishops implemented the reforms that the Vatican documents really called for, our Mass would look more like the glorious Divine Liturgy of the Byzantine church rather than what we have now, which is heavily Protestant-ized.

We are in the a Liturgical Winter, as Mark J said, and it is the fault of the liturgists (who gave them that job anyway?), the wonky theologians, and Bishops/priests. We need to pray and fast for the promulgation of the true renewal that Vatican II called for.

Grace and peace to each of you.

Picard said...

Katie Ross:

But how can the Holy Father speak of a "renewal" of the liturgy via Vat II and on the other side of this "renewed" liturgy as banal and fabricated?? And learned liturgists as Alcuin Reid speak of real rupture - or Bf. Schneider of wounds of the Church through this new liturgy?

Why this inconsistent speaking of the the Holy Father, why always the red-rose sun-glasses?!? Why always praise for the Vat. II & the "reforms" - that where NO true reforms at all!?! - No, it is not only abuses - it is the "reforms" themselfe.

Mike said...

Katie Rose,

We love the Church too. That's why we are saddened by the liturgical wounds and rupture.

But you are right: the Risen One is with us, and our Hope is supernatural...

Sam said...

"Yet he is deeply committed to Vll as well as to the Novus Ordo, eventhough he has called the NO "banal" and a manufactured Liturgy."

Not long ago on Father Zuhlsdorf's blog, a poster insisted that Traditional Catholics had misrepresented Josef Cardinal Ratzinger's (our Pope) "banal...manufactured Liturgy" remark.

The poster insisted that Josef Cardinal Ratzinger did not declare that the Novus Ordo Mass was a banal, manufactured Liturgy.

The poster claimed that Josef Cardinal Ratzinger had said that misguided Catholics at parishes who tinkered with the Novus Ordo had created banal, manufactured liturgies.

Gloria said...

Listen to the Irish high priest of liturgy comment on the Holy Father's words (warning - high bs content):

http://saltandlighttv.org/iec/2012/iec-2012-reflecting-on-the-popes-video-message

NIANTIC said...

Sam,
The banal manufactured liturgy is the Novus Ordo Mass, which was created, not by "misguided Catholics in parishes who tinkererd with the Novus Ordo", but by Archbishop Bugnini and his committee of modernist ecumenical minded assistants. All under the supervision and approval of Pope Paul Vl. The Novus Ordo was imposed upon the Church from on high and by its nature invited all the abuses we see everywhere. When you create something which glorifies Man you get the results we have seen. Pax Christi!

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

' it is the fault of the liturgists (who gave them that job anyway?), the wonky theologians, and Bishops/priests'... you mean the ones who dominated Vatican II, implemented it and used it to justify everything they did? Vatican II isn't the solution IT IS THE PROBLEM, honestly when will we learn?!

John L said...

On the question of this 'ecclesiology of communion'; is this referring to the actual reception of communion? And if it is, does the reception of communion include reception of communion by those in a state of mortal sin, or only by those in a state of grace? It seems hard to apply the Pope's words to reception of communion by those in a state of mortal sin. But if it is only reception of communion by those in a state of grace that is being referred to, talk about the 'ecclesiology of communion' seems to confine the church to those in a state of grace, which is directly contrary to Christ's words in the gospel.

Raymond said...

The New Mass affects Perpetual Adoration Chapels with people chatting with each other, men in jeans and women in various states of un-dress. Are these abuses even if done out of ignorance, calling down blessings on the Parish?

Gravitas said...

The Council, the Council. When will they give up?

Matt said...

"Hence much still remains to be done on the path of real liturgical renewal. "

What is concretely being done to achieve this? What shape or form is the desired result? What is it the Holy Father envisions? No outline, no gist of what this "real Liturgical renewal" is supposed to look like. The language upgrade to the Novus Ordo was it?

Additionally, "Yet not infrequently, the revision of liturgical forms has remained at an external level, and 'active participation' has been confused with external activity. "

This has been stated over and over since 2005, but what of it? Asked again, what concrete steps have been taken to make this into some sort of reality?

Okay, how about this? The SSPX coming back into the Church is the renewal! The re-invigoration of the Church via the Tridentine Mass and sound Doctrine to go with it.

Gravitas said, "The Council, the Council. When will they give up?"

Gravitas, I think perhaps when they are gone. To give it up now means giving up their reason-for-being, the thrust behind what it is they believe they are doing.

Matt said...

Sam said, "The poster claimed that Josef Cardinal Ratzinger had said that misguided Catholics at parishes who tinkered with the Novus Ordo had created banal, manufactured liturgies."

See! That's the spin the libs put on it, yet no example of the Holy Father explaining it that way can be found. Nonetheless, though, it's still a reflexive statement. It's because of the Novus Ordo being what it is and the mentality of those behind which allow all the nonsense to occur at the parish level, still does create banal, manufactured liturgies, and because there is no stipulation on what the Novus Ordo should actually be like.

They all scream about the "documents of the Council," but notice how documents such as Sacrosanctum Concilium is completely ignored. Oooh, ouch! Possibly because it could be referring to the Tridentine Mass!

!

Cruise the Groove. said...

Why did the Church need liturgical renewel at a time when She was stronger than ever and the Mass was precise and beautiful?

For 38 years I went to the Novus Ordo Mass and never really understood what the Mass was, and it was in fact frustrated and even angered by it, but when I started going to the TLM and SSPX Masses I began to understand it and a real calmness and serenity came over me.

Is this liturgical renewel?

Jan said...

Why do you have an option for Anonymous if you don't want it used - plain silly and confusing. Please clarify. Thank you! Jan

A Mom said...

Cruise the Groove: "For 38 years I went to the Novus Ordo Mass and never really understood what the Mass was, and it was in fact frustrated and even angered by it, but when I started going to the TLM and SSPX Masses I began to understand it and a real calmness and serenity came over me."

Same thing for me. I never had a clear understanding of the Mass as a Sacrifice and its relation to the Old Testament. When I saw my first TLM and the prayers at the foot of the Altar prior to entering the Holy of Holies, everything for me clicked.

Matt said...

Why did the Church need liturgical renewel at a time when She was stronger than ever and the Mass was precise and beautiful?

Really? It seems to me that if this statement is true, then the implementation of VII which is infinitely more abhorent than the VII documents themselves would not have been so. How did the priests and bishops who were part of this "stronger than ever" Church drop Latin and destroy their sanctuaries in the blink of an eye?

Clearly something was rotten in the state of Denmark in the decades leading up to VII that not only allowed VII to do what it did, but lead the priests, bishops, not to mention the faithful to fall so far so fast.

Richard M. Sawicki said...

I don't quite understand how so many folks can say "I attended the Novus Ordo and never understood it was a sacrifice".

Were they not paying attention to what the priest (and congregation) was saying?

i.e.: "pray brethren that my SACRIFICE and yours..."May the Lord accept the SACRIFICE at your hands"..."Lord, may this SACRIFICE which has made our peace with you"..."this Holy and Living SACRIFICE"...

Just curious.

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

Matthew Rose said...

Mrs. Rose:

First off, thanks be to God that you converted to the Catholic Church. I too am a young, relatively recent convert to Holy Mother Church.

While your optimism and desire to defend the current and immediately former occupants of the See of Peter are laudable, traditional Catholics (all Catholics, really), are justly dismayed by ongoing appeals to Vatican II, or its intended reforms or goods.

Vatican II was convened by John XXIII with a score of prepared documents, arduously worked upon for years prior, written and formulated in clear and traditional language. In the very first session, these clear and concise formulations were jettisoned - every last one, save one. We ended up with a document which suggests that mankind has a natural (i.e. "human") right to profess a false religion, a document which suggests that the Church must conform itself to the world and to modern man, a document which suggests that the Mass, all Sacramental Rites, and the Divine Office, ought to be reformed, and a document which states that the Church of Christ is not simply equal to the Catholic Church, full stop, and many other novelties and disturbing ambiguities.

There was no reason to make the Roman Rite akin to the Byzantine Rite. The Byzantine Rite is beautiful, wonderful, and venerable - let it be! So too is the Roman Rite - let it be!

Mrs. Rose, I do not intend to attack you personally, and I am firsthand aware of how strange it is to jump into the Barque of Peter only to find Her apparently taking on water at a terrifying rate. Thank God and His Saints for the gift of faith which you have been given, and nourish it diligently! Our Lady promised that in the end, Her Immaculate Heart will triumph!

Adfero said...

Jan, we have no ability to take away the option. It's built into blogger. That is why we put the instructions above the comment box.

LeonG said...

The Sacred Liturgy must embody The Roman Catholic Faith otherwise the faithful cannot be appropriately nourished by it. St Pio of Pietrelcina always emphasised the internal preparedness for Holy Mass because he understood that it is the reenactment of Christ's Calvary but unbloodied. As he greatly admired most Pope St Pius X from all the popes as being the most Christlike, he clearly echoed the necessity of restoration of all things in Christ through individual interior reform.

That Pope Benedict XVI should be focussing his liturgical attentions on this salient and imperative prerequisite not only illustrates a certain move away from his earlier liturgical views prior to the Councils but it also demonstrates that with time he has understood why 50 years of stress on the external process and increasing exterior performance has created banal and fabricated liturgies.

However, he cannot go further toward The Holy Mass in Latin exclusively because his interest is in the production of what he considers to be a desirable unifying hybrid form.
How this can be created organically is personally beyond my own comprehension since this would shift the church toward a new liturgical paradigm yet again and could potentially provoke a further split in the Latin Rite Church as both the supporters of the NO and the Latin Mass would find this unacceptable. Thus, he must certainly remain with the NO form since this is essentially the direction from which he comes.

Matt (the first one) said...

RC, I'm (the one who commented on martyrdom) not the Matt who wrote this below. I suppose copying my style is flattering... but then again... Perhaps he should designate himself as Matt2 or the like.



Matt said...
Why did the Church need liturgical renewel at a time when She was stronger than ever and the Mass was precise and beautiful?

Really? It seems to me that if this statement is true, then the implementation of VII which is infinitely more abhorent than the VII documents themselves would not have been so. How did the priests and bishops who were part of this "stronger than ever" Church drop Latin and destroy their sanctuaries in the blink of an eye?

Clearly something was rotten in the state of Denmark in the decades leading up to VII that not only allowed VII to do what it did, but lead the priests, bishops, not to mention the faithful to fall so far so fast.

Bartholomew said...

Mr. Sawicki said:

"I don't quite understand how so many folks can say 'I attended the Novus Ordo and never understood it was a sacrifice'."

Two responses:

(1) Compared to the ancient ritual, those references are sparse to the point of being extremely minimalistic.

(2) Unless the ritual gestures and structure visibly supports the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the sparse references are words which have little context and therefore can be passed over with little or no reflection upon that to which they refer.

Knight of Malta said...

NIANTIC:

Good points, but I think our Holy Father is less a contradiction in terms, and more a plain realist.

As much as he likes Vatican II, I don't think he much likes the new mass. But the problem is this: you get rid of the new mass, among over a billion Catholics, now, and you face an implosion--a revolution worse than when Bugnini and Paul VI fabricated a new mass.

The liturgy is the heart of the Church, but it is not the whole of the Church. I, for one, simply can't imagine the burdens Benedict is having to deal with.

Pray for him.

A Mom said...

Richard M. Sawicki: "I don't quite understand how so many folks can say 'I attended the Novus Ordo and never understood it was a sacrifice'".
I did not understand the Sacrifice as being the fulfillment of the OT Passover, nor did I understand how the two even related to each other except that our Lord's Passion, Death, and Resurrection took place at that time of year.
Also, most talk of sacrifice that I heard was regarding the community coming together to offer OUR sacrifices to God. That's what I always thought was being referred to during Mass.
Stupid, I know, and very embarrassing to admit, but that's my story.

Knight of Malta said...

Clearly something was rotten in the state of Denmark in the decades leading up to VII that not only allowed VII to do what it did, but lead the priests, bishops, not to mention the faithful to fall so far so fast.

Matt, couldn't agree more.

Modernism was percolating in the Church long before Vatican II.

I am not a robot said...

Mom,
Diddo.
The NO does not emphasize the Lord's sacrifice and the traditional meaning is mostly forgotte. IMO they have taken a protestant view on sacrifice and the Lord's presence. For those that object to this line of thinking, please poll some of the ill trained parishioners and your friendly NO liberal priest.

JR

Matt2 said...

With apologies to original "Matt" I have had this name since 1969, so it's not as though I was copying his "style" in the interest of eliminating the confusion, i'll humbly submit to being Matt2.

Modernism was percolating in the Church long before Vatican II.

I think modernism, and a shallow degree of catechesis almost universally... if the faithful were being properly catechised, they would have changed themselves to the altar's... a few did, but far too few...

It seems like many of us who adhere to Tradition think of the years before VII as some sort of Catholic utopia, that couldn't have been the case.

Adam Michael said...

Katie,

The Second Vatican Council did not intend (in any practical sense) to bring the Roman Rite closer to the Byzantine Rite. While a faithful implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) would not have resulted in the Novus Ordo and its baneful Protestantism, it would have distanced the Roman Rite from its commonality with the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church (and those Eastern Catholics who preserve an undiluted Byzantine Rite).

For example, Sacrosanctum Concilium clearly mandated a reform to the readings at Mass, thus causing the ancient scriptural periscopes to be lost. The Byzantine Rite continues to use its ancient scriptural periscopes. Likewise, the document wanted sacred images to be preserved in “moderation” and mentioned the veneration of “authentic” relics, thus ensuring both the reduction of sacred images and a hitherto unknown vetting of the Church’s relics – both actions that are foreign to the spiritual and liturgical patrimony of the Christian East. Furthermore, Sacrosanctum Concilium wanted to thin out the sanctoral of the Latin Church to ensure the celebration of only well-known saints. Once again, this is unknown in the Byzantine Rite, where several saints are publically celebrated each day. And while the Council spoke in ambiguous terms about the preservation of Gregorian chant (“all things being equal”), it did not promote Gregorian chant in mission territories (as the 1958 Instruction on Sacred Music did), and through allowing the vernacular for the solemn Mass, ensured that Gregorian chant would always be optional. Once again, this is foreign to the ancient Christian East, whose liturgical patrimony not only mandates the use of chant in more solemn liturgies, but preserves it in all liturgies.

Again, while I concede that a strict and faithful implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy would not have resulted in the Novus Ordo, but rather a Liturgy along the lines of the 1965 Ordo Missae; it is incorrect to say that it would have brought the Roman Rite closer to the Byzantine Rite. The two Rites had been drifting apart since the High Middle Ages and the Second Vatican Council intended to continue this drift, according to the principles of the pre-Conciliar “liturgical movement.”

Jordanes551 said...

Why do you have an option for Anonymous if you don't want it used - plain silly and confusing. Please clarify. Thank you! Jan

It may or may not be confusing, but it's not silly. Blogger has an option that would eliminate the option for posting anonymously -- but in that option, only those who register a Blogger or Google account would have the ability to post comments here. Rather than force all potential commenters to register an account, we have opted to instruct everyone to sign their posts (whether with their names or with a "nom de plume") to make it easier for discussions and debates to proceed without confusing among multiple anonymouses.

LeonG said...

A mere reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium on the diection liturgy should take in the post-conciliar era is inadequate. Study of the discussions during the councils on the liturgy were advanced on the conciliar agenda which accorded with liberal modernist manoeuvres and wishes. Clearly, many suggestions from bishops at the councils and from the liturgical reform movement astutely hijacked by Bugnini since the late 1940s, intimated strongly that The Latin Mass was destined for major changes. Once a liberal pope was in place this went ahead as hoped. In fact, some of the liberals wanted even more alterations.

When we read any documents or summaries of proceedings from the 1960s concerning the liturgy we have to do so with our eyes open and with a capacity for decoding liberal-speak. Once Bugnini had made significant changes to the Roman Rite in the 1950s (bearing in mind some novelties had been made earlier in the twentieth century such as the dialogue Mass form) he was able to push the protestantising agenda forward more vigorously when Pope John XXIII had passed away and his liberal ally Pope Paul VI was enthroned.

The NO is but a label - its general form however was fully intended by the liberals. But for the courage of a few orthodox Roman Catholics in maintaining a vestige pratice of Latin Masses, the NO would now be known exclusively as The Roman Rite.

Adam Michael said...

"The NO is but a label - its general form however was fully intended by the liberals. But for the courage of a few orthodox Roman Catholics in maintaining a vestige pratice of Latin Masses, the NO would now be known exclusively as The Roman Rite."

In fact, it was Pope Benedict XVI, in his motu proprio, "Summorum Pontificum," who stopped the Novus Ordo from being known exclusively as the Roman Rite. Before this motu proprio, the Novus Ordo was legally the only form of the Roman Rite. While traditional Catholics played an instrumental role in leading to the motu proprio and its change of the legal nature of the Roman Rite, it was Pope Benedict XVI that made the actual change.

CPK said...

John L hypothesized: On the question of this 'ecclesiology of communion'; is this referring to the actual reception of communion? And if it is... talk about the 'ecclesiology of communion' seems to confine the church to those in a state of grace, which is directly contrary to Christ's words in the gospel.

Well, John L, I think you have gone well and truly off-piste here. An early clue that the Holy Father was not referring to "actual reception of communion" is his reference in the second sentence of the second paragraph to "the notion of koinonia or communio". For koinonia, see especially 1 Jn 1:3. For a fuller treatment by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger of the ecclesiology of communion, together with its relationship to the theology informing the second Vatican council, see this article. From this it will be evident that neither His Holiness nor the Fathers of the Council intended anything "directly contrary to Christ's words in the Gospel".

Thanks, anyway, for a fine example of the "hermeneutic of suspicion". Don't imagine that this was ever a "traditional" hermeneutic to apply to papal teaching.

LeonG said...

Adam Michael

You obviously do not understand my point. The liberal modernist onslaught of the 1960s tried to fossilise The Latin Mass forever but they failed. Had they succeeded in the early post-vernacular Mass period then the NO would have become exclusively The Roman Rite.

Pope Benedict XVI, as Fr Ratzinger then, was one of those who was very critical of The Latin Mass at the time of the councils. I doubt very much if he would have lamented its demise at that juncture. As it is he is not responsible for saving The Latin Mass nor its perpetual and guaranteed right to be said and heard. This was achieved by Pope St Pius V in the first place and afterwards, as I state, by those brave enough to stand firm against the enemies of The Latin Mass et al. during the poast-conciliar revolutionary era.