Rorate Caeli

Cardinal Cañizares: "I celebrate the Traditional Mass because it is normal to do so"

From the interview granted by Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to La Stampa's Andrea Tornielli on his celebration of the Traditional Mass next Saturday in the Vatican Basilica, the culmination of the November 1-3 international pilgrimage to Rome of Traditional Catholics in union with His Holiness:
What is the point of the pilgrimage?


“To give thanks to God and thank the Pope for the motu proprio he issued five years ago, recognising the value of the liturgy celebrated according to the missal of the Blessed John XXIII and marking continuity with the tradition of the Roman Rite. By recognising the previous liturgy one understands that reform does not mean doing away with older traditional practices.”


Why did you agree to celebrate mass for pilgrims who follow the pre-conciliar Rite?


I agreed because it is a way to show people it is normal to use the 1962 missal: there are two forms of the same Rite but there is only one Rite, so it is normal to use it during mass celebrations. I have already celebrated a number of masses according to the missal introduced by the Blessed John XXIII and I will gladly do so again on this occasion. The Congregation in which the Pope has called me to act as Prefect does not oppose the use of the old liturgy, although the task of our dicastery is to enhance the meaning of liturgical renewal according to the directives of the Sacrosanctum Concilium constitution and follow in the footsteps of the Second Vatican Council. In relation to this it must be said that the extraordinary form of the Latin Rite must draw inspiration from the conciliar Constitution which in the first ten paragraphs focuses on the true spirit of the liturgy and so is relevant to all rites.”

59 comments:

Timothy Mulligan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A Catholic said...

But Father I draw no inspiration from the concilliar constitution, in fact I see it as a hindrance. I think I will stick the EF. Happy to see that you are feeling normal with the Mass of All Times, please don't mess with it.

A Catholic

Ma Tucker said...


"In relation to this it must be said that the extraordinary form of the Latin Rite must draw inspiration from the conciliar Constitution which in the first ten paragraphs focuses on the true spirit of the liturgy and so is relevant to all rites.”

Given that the Extraordinary Form pre-dates the Conciliar Constitution it seems sensible to assume that the constitution ought to draw inspiration from the Extraordinary Form.

I admit I have not read the constitution in Latin as I am unable. I would love to read a proper translation of it. I find the Extraordinary Rite inspirational for the Catholic elements that seem to have been hidden in the newer use.

Anyone know of a good english translation?



KSW said...

It might help this discussion if the persons involved would consult the first ten paragraphs of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Those paragraphs do not propose modifications to the liturgy; they do not propose "full, conscious, and active" (that's paragraph 14). Rather, paragraphs 1-10 are about Christ and the eschatological nature of the liturgy -- a theme dear to the proponents of the theology of the mystical body, as to the great liturgical theologians of the middle ages. So read the paragraphs before commenting, folks!

Timothy Mulligan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Taylor B said...

I just don't get it. I always see these types of comments from the clergy, that the forms should "enrich" each other, that X Y or Z was necessary.

But none of them actually say, critically, what was wrong with the EF (if this is possible).

I understand rushed Low Masses as simply unacceptable (perhaps that is why we have had this Great Chastisement), but in the Mass itself, is there anything wrong?

I know we here are biased, but seriously, I don't see it.

Josephus Muris Saliensis said...

Unbelievable the prejudiced ignorance of some of these comments!

These SC paragraphs are a fine treatise on the Mass.

Here is sample, read it, then go and listen to Fulton Sheen on the Mass:

"Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.

From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.

8. In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims,"

The real point of the Cardinal's comments is that he proposes these 10 paragraphs. Read 11 onwards.

Then.... come back and comment.

Joseph said...

re: Josephus Muris Saliensis

While I agree with you that an informed commentary is a more educated one, the liturgical malaise which Vatican II has brought upon the Church, whether from the council itself or its aftermath, is rather like some kind of horrible stomach flu to me. It does make sense to take a 2nd look at SC and I'm not afraid to do so; but frankly I have no desire to go there. The notion that Vatican II has been misunderstood all these years and "if we just re-read & re-implemented the documents things would be o.k." seems out of line with our common experience. What is needed is a liturgical restoration which preserves the ancient liturgy intact (much like the Eastern Orthodox have done in preserving their liturgy) but which reforms the the Novus Ordo to Tradition. If the Novus Ordo became more like what the Anglo-Catholics had maintained we would be in a much better position liturgically, and we wouldn't have had the massive loss of faith in Transubstantiation which is rampant in every part of the world. In other words, the problem isn't the Old Rite: it's the New Rite. Even Blessed Mother Teresa complained to Pope John Paul II about communion in the hand but he did nothing about it. If the Pope had the guts to at least do that there would be some signs of hope for our parishes but right now we are on a suicidal path.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Well at least the TLM is now "normal" though of course the mass is anything but a normal event, anyway the Vatican 2 comments kind of ruined it...

Simon Platt said...

What does the eleventh paragraph say?

Torkay said...

Wasn't the Constitution on the Liturgy the only draft schema that was not rejected by revolutionaries?

Two forms of the same rite, my foot. That's like saying hamburger is a form of filet mignon.

Ted Maysfield said...

Before everyone flies off the handle with intemperate remarks, first show some gratitude that a high church official is giving respect to the Tridentine Mass, even while calling it, probably for tactical reasons, the Mass of Blessed John XXIII.

One objection to the spread of the Tridentine Mass on the part of cardinals and bishops is the extreme right wing agenda of some of those involved wit the old Mass, including parish priests and plenty of laity.

By right wing I don’t mean right-ro-life or anti-contraception, those are universal Catholic virtues.

I am referring to an attempt to alienate all but politically right wing types from the traditional parishes. This is not Catholic! The cult mentality is often very strong in traditional Latin Mass communities. This too is not Catholic!

Who can blame the Vatican for wanting to moderate this fanaticism and temperate it with the realization that the contemporary Roman Catholic Church embraces the Second Vatican Council and rejects both fascism and communism, both extreme Left and extreme Right.

Everyone who is sincerely seeking the Catholic faith should feel welcome in a Tridentine parish, not just women in head coverings and dresses to their ankles.

The Tridentine Mass is for everyone in light of Vatican II. I think that’s what the cardinal is trying to convey. It doesn’t belong to a cult and never did.

The bishops and cardinals are wary of schismatic cultic elements.

If we could have more welcoming Tridentine parishes with more diverse parishioners I think you’d see broader acceptance of the old Mass among the bishops.

A lot of people here in this comments section are itching to pick a fight with the hierarchy. Please take the time to consider the legitimate concerns of Catholic bishops in the evangelization of traditional Catholics who are often too proud and too exclusive.

The well has been poisoned by the cry of the schismatics, who are trying to invalidate the Second Vatican Council. This is counter-productive for those who are inside the Church because the Council is here to stay.

Jean Francois said...

@Ted Maysfield

Your comments are well said and appreciated.

KSW said...

Timothy:

What he means is that those who assist at and who celebrate the traditional Mass can draw inspiration from the perennial theology presented in SC 1-10.

Vatican II introduced problems, but those problems are not to be found in SC 1-10 -- which is precisely why Canizares references SC 1-10 and not, say, SC 14 or 34.

Martyjo said...

Josephus Muris Saliensis,

Here is a re-print of your post with interspersed comment from me.

“These SC paragraphs are a fine treatise on the Mass.” Perhaps not so fine on closer inspection!

"Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ…”

Absolutely correct introduction, very clear and precise.

But what does this follow on statement mean? “In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs…”

Are we to understand here perceptible signs of the hidden reality, i.e., the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary and Transubstantiation, or are we to understand these signs in the Protestant sense of a perceptible spiritual remembrance, nothing more? The statement is ambiguous at best, the more so because it avoids the word “Sacrifice.”

“…in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.”

This statement contradicts the first, which says the liturgy is an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. It seems to me that there is some unhealthy crosswires being set up here between the sacerdotal priesthood and the priesthood of the people.

Wouldn’t it have been better for the drafters of this document to have stuck with the less ambiguous description of Tradition, which says: Christ the High Priest, in the person of the celebrant, offers Christ the Victim to the Father for the remission of sins. The faithful participate in this act of worship and atonement by uniting themselves through the words and actions of the priest to Jesus Christ on the Cross?

This SC statement is further flawed in that it’s wording effectively undermines individual private Masses offered by priests without faithful.

“From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.”

Once again the word “Sacrifice” is omitted and the emphasis is placed on a liturgical celebration which is only meaningful when performed with laity, i.e. “the Church” present. Again, the eternal value of private Masses offered by priests without faithful is undermined.

“In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims.”

This statement makes no sense whatsoever to me, although I am open to a valid Traditional explanation. Will there be a requirement for the Sacrifice of Calvary to be offered, albeit more sublimely, in the holy city of Jerusalem, which I presume means the New Jerusalem? If the Sacrifice of Our Lord on Calvary is offered here below in reparation for sin, then what would be the reason for its continuance for the blessed in heaven who now enjoy the beatific vision?

The statement only makes sense if the holy Mass is considered to be primarily a liturgy of praise (Protestant theology) and not of atonement (Catholic theology). Hmmm!

John L said...

"In relation to this it must be said that the extraordinary form of the Latin Rite must draw inspiration from the conciliar Constitution which in the first ten paragraphs focuses on the true spirit of the liturgy and so is relevant to all rites.”

Perhaps this is merely awkwardly expressed. It is nonetheless unfortunate, as the essential part of the liturgy is of divine origin and forms part of divine tradition (as that very constitution recognises). The constitution, like all documents of ecumenical councils, is thus subordinate to the liturgy and draws such inspiration as it has from the liturgy, rather than vice versa.


'First show some gratitude that a high church official is giving respect to the Tridentine Mass'.

Well, no. This is a basic duty of a high church official, and he is not owed gratitude for it - any more than he is owed gratitude for respecting the Bible or the Creed.

Tradical said...

" ... the schismatics, who are trying to invalidate the Second Vatican Council. This is counter-productive for those who are inside the Church ..."

I am afraid that this statement outlines two prejudices. The first, presumably against the SSPX, the second against a clear interpretation of the Second Vatican Council in line with Tradition.

I would note in the defense that the 'radicalization' of the 'traditional movement' is not without cause.

The cause can be found, to lesser or greater extent, in the banner used to create such havoc within the Church of Christ.

That banner was, and remains: The Second Vatican Council.

Why is it that for decades various elements within the Church have had free reign in spreading liturgical abuse and heresy - all in the name of the 'Council'. These elements refuse portions of the Council that repeat past magisterium and even Dogmatic teachings.

Yet, the SSPX has to sign a preamble agreeing to it all as well as the Novus Ordo Missae.

Ultimately, this is about the Council. That is why.

IMO: To 'ignore' this aspect of the crisis in the Church is to ignore one of root causes of this crisis of faith. There are other causes as well but sugar pills and nice words are not going to make this crisis go away until the bitter pill is swallowed.

What remains while Rome and the SSPX go back and forth?

Prayer
Penance
Patience

P^3



Tom said...

What is the point of the pilgrimage?

"By recognising the previous liturgy one understands that reform does not mean doing away with older traditional practices."

I realize that the new party line is "continuity...everything was to have remained the same...reform does not mean doing away with older traditional practices."

But Pope Paul VI insisted that the Vatican II liturgical reform was determined to alter Tradition.

CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE

Pope Paul VI

November 26, 1969

Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

"We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass."

*******innovation*******

"A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries."

*******tradition to change*******

"This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled."

*******religious patrimony is not rock solid...it is subject to tinerking*******

"This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them."

*******Be prepared to be annoyed by the reform*******

"We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits.

"We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect."

*******The reform will shake and disturb pious Catholics...annoy priests*******

"First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing."

*******The liturgical reform is novel*******

"No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass.

"We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance.

"We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant."

*******The reform will turns us into "profane intruders"*******

*******the reform will cause us to lose to a great extent Latin and Gregorian chant*******

Pope Paul VI warned that the Vatican II liturgical reform would introduce revolutionary novelties and massives changes that would disturb and shake pious Catholics...not to mention that Latin and Gregorian chant would, to a great extent, disappear from the Mass.

Conversely, in their attempt to salvage Vatican II, our Churchmen today present the notion that the liturgical reform was not about dramatic changes...it was about perfect continuity.

Yeah. Okay. Sure.

Tom

Ed said...

"This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy."

Is that part of the section referenced by the Cardinal?

David Werling said...

It's pathetic how many times this has to be pointed out to people:

"Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist" (Pascendi Dominici gregis, para 18, Pope St. Pius X, regarding the Modernists).

Ma Tucker said...

KSW,

On what basis do you presume to know what the Cardinal means? He did not say what You say he means, he said this:-

"In relation to this it must be said that the extraordinary form of the Latin Rite must draw inspiration from the conciliar Constitution which in the first ten paragraphs focuses on the true spirit of the liturgy and so is relevant to all rites"

Maybe you are correct in misinterpreting his spoken word, but I don't see you offer any evidence to support your misinterpretation, and "a little birdie told me " won't wash :-)!

I have now read the first 10 paragraphs as you suggested.

Paragraph1 fine

Paragraph 2 upsets me a little because Liturgy is how we worship God first and foremost. It is the means by which we give God due worship as He has laid out. In this paragraph we see an emphasis of using Liturgy as a tool of religious expression and manifestation to others. I find the placing of this focus as PRIMARY distasteful.

Paragraph 2
"For the liturgy, "through which the work of our redemption is accomplished,most of all in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, is the outstanding means whereby the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church"

Para 3,4,fine

para 5 correctly describes true Liturgy and its proper primary focus. Happy with it except its position

para 6,7,8,9, 10 fine.

The rest of the document gives instructions on how the liturgy is to be reformed in such an effective, clear and unambiguous manner, so carefully crafted as to ensure that nothing repugnant to our Creator could ever be permitted. By this careful, unambiguous language and instruction we can all clearly see how paragraphs 1-10 really form the underlying basis for all 120 paragraphs that followed. :-)










Alan Aversa said...

Why aren't his thumb and index finger of his left hand together? I thought the priest was supposed to keep them joined.

Transitionalist said...

We are thankful for the decision of His Eminence to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, but his words would be more effective and meaningful if he were to also resolve to celebrate this Mass more frequently in public. The fact is that he has celebrated only a very few Masses according to the 1962 Missal -- one in 2007, and a handful in 2009 and 2010.

Joseph said...

Ted,

Thank you for your post. Unfortunately, you are not the owner of the blog because the comment boxes on this otherwise excellent blog in the last several months have been taken over by the extremists who follow the misguided ideology of the pseudo-cult leader Williamson. Their uninformed and tedious criticisms of everything done by the Catholic Church poison people's goodwill towards sane traditionalists.

Tom said...

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/07/cardinal-canizares-interview-on-three.html

Antonio Cardinal Cañizares, 2010:

"There is only one liturgy.

"Consequently both forms of the celebration of the Roman rite fit with ease in the same formation - precisely because they are one and the same liturgy.

"It is also important to note that the Church, because of the hermeneutic of continuity, does not freeze the Missal of John XXIII, but has not broken with it either.

"The tradition of the Church is being further integrated in the development of the Second Vatican Council.

"Therefore, the liturgical education for all will always have to be aligned with Sacrosanctum Concilium.

"Given the richness of the Roman Rite in its entire traditions - and this includes the missal of John XXIII and the post-conciliar liturgical reform - both cannot be played off against each other.

"They are expressions of the same liturgical wealth."

It would be interesting to learn whether many Traditionalists likely agree with the Cardinal's above statements.

Tom

Vincentius said...

THE ONE CATHOLIC MASS

ITS VALIDITY, LICEITY, AND BENEFIT

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the first of the sacraments, but it is certainly the greatest. It is also the most abundant, since for centuries the Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Last Supper and of Calvary has been re-iterated countless times each day all over the evangelized world. It is the greatest of the seven sacraments and therefore the most necessary and holiest of the actions of men, because Christ is its Sovereign Priest, acting mediately through the ministry of the ordained priest, and because He is its Victim and Gift, acting immediately through His Own Body and Blood, really, truly, and substantially present on the altar.
....
To know whether any given Mass presents all the requisite or desirable characteristics of perfection, one will observe that it is the action of Christ which assures its validity, the co-operation of the Church which assures its liceity, and the disposition of the priest and the faithful which assures its benefit.


From the CRC commentary.

Absent this last requirement, is there a Mass?

Jordanes551 said...

Joseph said: Unfortunately, you are not the owner of the blog because the comment boxes on this otherwise excellent blog in the last several months have been taken over by the extremists who follow the misguided ideology of the pseudo-cult leader Williamson.

Do you mean to imply that New Catholic and the other contributors here are followers of or sympathetic to Bishop Williamson? I can assure you that is absolutely not the case. Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

Gratias said...

Relax. Enjoy the opportunity to have the immemorial liturgy restored to the altar of the Chair, where Bernini covered St. Peter's cathedra in bronze to be preserved for centuries to come.

Happily, Mr. and Mrs. Gratias will be in attendance. Hope to send Rorate a few lines on how that goes. This event will be the traditionalist's contribution for the year of Faith. Remember, the SSPX refusal to the Holy Father will set the EF cause back. We need to do a lot more before we can redeem the traditional movement from the refusal of some.

Pulex said...

Martyjo said:

"“In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified …” ... The statement is ambiguous at best, the more so because it avoids the word “Sacrifice.”"

Dear Martyjo, these general introductory paragraphs of the SC under the term "liturgy" refer, as usually in the West, not only to the Holy Mass, but to all services which are regulated by liturgical books (Mass, Divine Office, processions, benedictions).

“From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, ...”. ... the emphasis is placed on a liturgical celebration which is only meaningful when performed with laity, i.e. “the Church” present. Again, the eternal value of private Masses offered by priests without faithful is undermined."

Quite the opposite. The SC says "every liturgical celebration". Every 'private' Mass is a liturgical celebration and an act of public worship of the Church, no matter how many are assisting. Even with one server "the Church" is present. The Communion of Saints is present even in a solitary celebration. This paragraph of SC obviously states the primacy of worship according to the liturgical books over other, non-reglemented, forms.

poeta said...

I'm grateful for the Cardinal's words of support.

That said, the day a Pope preaches the principle of contradiction will be the day we may foresee an end to the crisis in the Church.

Miles Dei said...

So the traditional movement is a sensual one?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Ted kindly englighten us on what these extreme right wing values held by some people associated with tradition are? It would be quite an irony if these so called extreme views are actually those hold by the Church for centuries if not millennia would it not?

Fr. Shannon Collins said...

Much thanks must be given to the good cardinal for agreeing to offer the Traditional Mass at St. Peter's Basilica. What a blessing and what an historical event. But as for his comments, well, we are all very much aware that the Novus Ordo and the TLM are not the same rite. As Msgr. Klaus Gamber once stated, the Roman Rite was destroyed, de facto, in 1969. Pope Paul VI clearly stated that he was introducing a new rite to the Latin Church. Since no pope truly has such a "right," his actions were highly illicit. But the Mass that wouldn't die is back and back for good. It is alive and well and November 3 will be a glorious day.

Martyjo said...

Gratias,

You said: "the SSPX refusal to the Holy Father will set the EF cause back. We need to do a lot more before we can redeem the traditional movement from the refusal of some."

What? Surely you know that the Traditional Mass (which I refuse to call the EF) would not be available to most Catholics today had it not been for the stance taken by Archbishop Lefebvre and th SSPX? Your comments, then, are hardly objective. There would be no "traditional movement" worthy of the name had the SSPX not led the field.

Besides this, I should remind you that the cause of Tradition is about more than just the Mass, it's about doctrine as well. The SSPX refuses to remain docile to the errors of ecumenism, religious liberty, freedom of conscience, Collegiality and those other dangerous developments that have undermined divine truth. That's why the SSPX is condemned as radical while other Traditionalist groups are considered reasonable.

I personally prefer to be in the "radical" camp which refuses all compromise with Modernist errors, even if that means being unjustly condemned as extremist.

The true Mass cannot be separated from true doctrine. Defence of the faith demands a firm and vocal stance on both without compromise, despite the persecution.

Martyjo said...

It should be pointed out here, in relation to Cardinal Llovera's claim about the two rites being expressions of the same liturgical tradition, that the "Cause" hung above Our Lord on the Cross was written in three languages, namely Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Those same languages were preserved through twenty centuries by divine providence in the Traditional Mass. They are not present in the New Mass. So a supernatural link right back to Calvary has been severed. Just a thought!

Joseph Mary said...

All the arguments appear to be surrounding the English translation of the Cardinals words. What did he actually say in the Italian interview?

Spero said...

1. We have some really rash interpretations of S.C. being proposed here.
2. The Cardinal (whether you agree or not) is proposing that the Novus Ordo is to be interpreted in light of the TLM, not the other way around. To twist his words to mean the opposit is simply not in keeping with the context.

1. Martyjo:

“In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs…
See the Baltimore Catechism: A sacrament is an outward SIGN instituted by Christ to give GRACE.


“…in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.”

This statement concerns all liturgical prayer, not just the Mass, so it is sensible to speak in general terms, not just of the Holy Sacrifice. The point of the liturgy is that through the mediation of Christ in his Church, and through the instrumentality of the hierarchy, all people, being made members of Christ by Baptism, give him the worship that is his due. The priesthood of the ordained mediates for the priesthood of the Baptized.

“From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.”

Again, this is referring to liturgy in general, not just to the Mass…so there is no need to reference the Holy Sacrifice. Also, the private Mass is liturgical precisely because it is not truly private, but a public action of the whole Church, as is the private recitation of the Divine Office by a priest. The statement says nothing about who is physically present at the actual celebration, nor is anything about this implied.

“In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims.”

We most humbly beseech Thee, almighty God, command these offerings to be borne by the hands of Thy holy Angels to Thine altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine majesty, that as many as shall partake of the most holy Body and Blood of Thy Son at this altar, may be filled with every heavenly grace and blessing.
Per quem maiestátem tuam laudant Angeli, adórant Dominatiónes, tremunt Potestátes. Coeli coelorúmque Virtútes ac beáta Séraphim sócia exsultatióne concélebrant. Cum quibus et nostras voces ut admitti iubeas, deprecámur, súpplici confessione dicéntes: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus…
c.f. Byzantine liturgical theology. c.f. the notion of joining our praises to the angels in singing the Divine Office...
etc. etc. etc.

2. Remember that when S.C. was written, the N.O. did not exist! Yes, the Cardinal is, de facto, defending the New Mass as well. However, he is doing so precisely by affirming the TLM. He is not attacking the TLM. In fact, he is telling everyone to chill out and accept the TLM as a normal thing for Catholics! While some might think that it is wrong to hold that the N.O. is in line with Tradition, it is simply rash judgement to say that the Cardinal is saying the TLM must be celebrated as a break from Tradition!

Miles Dei said...

" although the task of our dicastery is to enhance the meaning of liturgical renewal according to the directives of the Sacrosanctum Concilium constitution and follow in the footsteps of the Second Vatican Council."

Begin renewing what is said of the Eucharistic veneration in A.A.S. 60:

De capite VI, 21 Constitutionis dogmaticae de Divina Revelatione « Dei Verbum »

D. Utrum in verbis « Divinas Scripturas sicut et ipsum Corpus dominicum semper venerata est Ecclesia, cum, maxime in Sacra Liturgia, non desinat ex mensa tam verbi Dei quam Corporis Christi panem vitae sumere atque fidelibus porrigere », Constitutionis dogmaticae de Divina Revelatione Dei Verbum, adverbium ‘ sicut ‘ significare valeat eandem esse seu aequalem venerationem Sacrae Scripturae debitam ac venerationem debitam Ss. Eucharistiae.

R. Venerationem esse tribuendam tum Sacrae Scripturae, tum Corpori dominico, diverso tamen modo seu ratione, uti eruitur ex Constitutione de Sacra Liturgia Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 7; Litteris Encyclicis Mysterium Fidei, diei 3 sept. 1965: A.A.S. 57 (1965), p. 764; Instructione S.R.C, diei 25 maii 1967 Eucharisticum Mysterium, n. 9 : A.A.S. 59 (1967), p. 547.

Then i shall begin to believe in your words. I see the neocatecummenas put a double tabernacle and you said nothing about that...

Parole...parole...parole...

Martyjo said...

Spero,

I see where you're coming from but I would venture to suggest that the Cardinal's comments were precisely Mass related. I would further suggest that SC was written ambiguously by liberals in order that it could be interpreted exactly as Cardinal Llovera has interpreted it, that is in the context that the Traditional Mass and the New Mass are equally valid expressions of the same liturgical rite, which of course they are not. I'm sorry, I stick by my original post.

Peter M said...

Please, let us not forget that when the new rite was introduced the previous was de facto suppressed and prohibited - that was the state of things for 40 years. Since 2007 the faithful have the right once again to attend it; now the prefect says its celebration is normal - this is very important and will have consequences.

Also, in the Italian interview, the prefect says that «... Riconoscendo la liturgia precedente si comprende che nel riformare non si nega ciò che era in uso precedentemente». This means that the reformed Mass is not denying the previous use. This is also very important, because it indicates the Traditional Mass as providing the key to understanding the reformed one. The burden of proof is on the new Mass: if there are things that seem to contradict previous truths, these things will have to be dealt with, by the competent authorities.

Dave514 said...

I was brought up on the traditional Mass and attended a Benedictine Public School in England. I especially liked the opportunity to be an Altar Boy with the Humeral Veil for the Abbott's mitre and an Advanced Thurifer, whose job it was to make sure all turns in the church were marked by a 360 degree swing.

Yes, the Mass was presented as a mystery and many of the parishioners instead of following it said their own private prayers. To me there was token participation. It was all happening in the Sanctuary.

Nowadays, in Scottsdale AZ I attend the Casa de Paz y Bien and the Mass is Charismatic. The mystery is there but so am I, so is the whole congregation.

What I do object to is the mish mosh shown on EWTN TV, in which part of the Mass is in English and part in Latin.

I'm happy where I am but can appreciate St. Peter's.

Pietro said...

Martyjo, your claim about the languages of the New Mass is incorrect. And his correct name is Cardinal Cañizares. Just two of your many errors. Please give up.

PEH said...

In April of 1969, the Vatican published the New Order of the Mass, a Mass which represented a great departure from the one mandated by St. Pius V and the Council of Trent. "To tell the truth," said Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the experts involved in its formulation, "it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." (Cited in The Tridentine Mass, p. 39).

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, whom Davies calls the 'chief architect of the liturgical revolution,' has made similar comments. He boasted that the New mass is "a major conquest of the Catholic Church," referring to it as "a new song" to which other verses will be added later.The altered nature of the Mass was not lost on some orthodox Catholics. The New mass found among its earliest and sternest critics Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, whose Critical Study and letter to the Pope on the subject charged that the New Mass "teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith."

Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani had served as head of the Holy Office under three Popes and in that position was charged with protecting the purity of the Catholic faith. (In America, the Cardinals' letter and accompanying study are published together as The Ottaviani Intervention.) The Cardinals' letter notes that "the Novus Ordo Missae... represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, which by fixing definitively the 'canons' of the rite, erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.

"The Novus Ordo, according to its formulators, was intended only as a provisional rite. Rumors were then circulating regarding yet another New Mass, the Ordo Simplex, reportedly due to make its appearance at a convenient time. Many Catholics, though uncomfortable with the obvious reduction of reverence and belief in their Churches, are not yet clear on what was lost with the introduction of the current Novus Ordo. They rail against what they view as 'abuses' without recognizing the underlying theological treachery in the rite itself.

So dear friends it is the THEOLOGY that separates the bew mass from the old - such as is found in the words of consecration and the elimination of references to sacrifice that is at the heart of our dispute. Also, confusing the sacerdotal priecthood with the priesthood of the laity makes us wonder where these guys were educated in theFaith, if they ever`were.

j hughes dunphy said...

It is the failure to teach, to govern, and to sanctify as it was done for 2000 years before VII which is the grievous sin of Omission that has caused all the problems we live with today in a modernized world of VII, nearly devoid of grace.
j hughes dunphy
the orthodox roman catholic

Glenn in Madrid said...

Pietro -could take the trouble to explain why you think Martyjo is wrong regarding the language thing in the new mass? She seems right to me. ¨You are wrong¨ isn't that helpful.
(The Cardinal's last name is not that important!)

Miles Dei said...

When the Cardinal celebrates with neocatecumenals is for the same reason?

http://www.camminoneocatecumenale.it/new/video.asp?lang=it&id=7

Caramele...

j hughes dunphy said...

The whole problem with Vatican II and everything thereafter is the monstrous sin of Omission, failing to teach,to govern, and sanctify the faithful with the truths of 2000 years. The onus of this guilt for modernized liturgy, doctrine, and governance lies with the hierarchy in general and the priesthood in particular, leaving those in the pews and the clergy with an uninformed catholic conscience. Lord have mercy on us all!
j hughes dunphy
the orthodox roman catholic

GE said...

"Latin, Greek and Hebrew... are not present in the New Mass.

Sorry, but this is a bit silly. In the official books they are there. Now most Masses are said in the vernacular, certainly, but there are still a fair number said on a worldwide basis at least partly in Latin and with the Kyrie in Greek. The Alleluia has not been translated into any vernacular as far as I know.

GE said...

"No. Just no."

Mr. Mulligan, that type of knee-jerk reaction does no-one any good. Neither does the rash interpretations of many others here. Is it so difficult to presume others' good will, even Princes of the Church?

When His Eminence states that "the extraordinary form of the Latin Rite must draw inspiration from the conciliar Constitution which in the first ten paragraphs focuses on the true spirit of the liturgy and so is relevant to all rites," I cannot see that he is insinuating that the traditional liturgy must be changed. He is merely making the obvious point that the general teaching of SC on liturgy is relevant also to the traditional rite and that has implications for the way the rite is to be celebrated.

In other words, those celebrating the traditional rite should be mindful that the liturgy has a complex and profound meaning and thus ought to demonstrate beauty and mystery. That precludes the sort of soulless celebration that was widespread in certain places before the council, with priests rattling off the prayers by rote and low Masses preferred to sung Masses due to convenience. This lesson is probably most relevant for those celebrating the New Mass, to be sure, but it is not exactly an insult to us either.

Pietro said...

Glenn in Madrid, what GE said. Though for Hebrew I was thinking of sabaoth in the Sanctus -- didn't think of Alleluia.

The correct name for the cardinal might not seem too important but it indicates to me that Martyjo's indignant polemic isn't backed up by much reading.

GE said...

'“In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims.” - This statement makes no sense whatsoever to me...'

Martyjo, it makes no sense whatsoever to me that this does not make sense to you. The Apocalypse tells of the worship given to the Lamb day and night in the heavenly Jerusalem. Other prophetic scriptures tell of the praise given to God continually by the angels. The prefaces of the Roman liturgy propund this image eloquently: "quem majestátem tuam laudant Angeli, adórant Dominatiónes, tremunt Potestátes. Cæli cælorúmque Virtútes, ac beáta Séraphim, sócia exsultatióne concélebrant."

This is the heavenly liturgy that we as Christians hope to participate in for eternity and which we already participate in, albeit imperfectly: "Cum quibus et nostras voces, ut admítti júbeas deprecámur..."

Poor Yorek said...

DAVE 514 said:

Nowadays, in Scottsdale AZ I attend the Casa de Paz y Bien and the Mass is Charismatic. The mystery is there but so am I, so is the whole congregation.

What I do object to is the mish mosh shown on EWTN TV, in which part of the Mass is in English and part in Latin.


I just have to ask: do you object as much to the mish-mash of bilingual English-Spanish? Your own words incorporate bilingualism.

Martyjo said...

"Pietro said...
Martyjo, your claim about the languages of the New Mass is incorrect. And his correct name is Cardinal Cañizares. Just two of your many errors. Please give up."


My claim about the three languages is quite accurate, unless you consider translations of the original Latin, Greek and Hebrew into the vulgar language of the vernacular in the New Mass to hold the same significance. They don't!

Now, His Eminence' full name is Antonio Cañizares Llovera, so it is you who are wrong.

As to my many errors. Well, I'm open to a more detailed description from you on that one.

And I would give up if I were not so addicted to the nicotine. Weak will, I'm afraid!

The Rad Trad said...

Re: languages

I think here I would side with martyjo.

This is a tough point, where accurate translations help, but only to a point. There is a breach between how an Oratory-style new Mass and what the new Mass actually is.

Pauline Mass debuted in 1969. By 1967 vernacular was the norm. Moaning about not having any Latin in the new rite in 99.9% of parishes is a moot point since the new rite was conceived in a vernacular world!

Timothy Mulligan said...

Martyjo, people in Spanish-speaking countries usually use two surnames, that of their father and that of their mother. Their father's comes first; their mother's second. The cardinal's full surname is Cañizares Llovera. His father's family names was Cañizares; his mother's family name was Llovera. It is permissible to call someone in these cultures by only one surname. When doing so, the father's surname should be used, just as it is in most Western cultures. Therefore, if you choose to call the cardinal by one of his surnames, it should be Cardinal Cañizares. In other words, Cañizares is not his middle name.

Now, my name is Timothy Mulligan. My mother's surname is Lyon. If I were a Spaniard or a Latino, I would be Timothy Mulligan Lyon. But I'm just plain old Timothy Mulligan. :(

chaimbeul said...

Dave514,

You mention that you object to the mish mosh of the EWTN Mass which is part Latin and part English. But what about the mish mash of English (or Spanish) mixed with the gibberish and swooning which is a part of your Charismatic Mass?

Martyjo said...

Timothy Mulligan

Thanks for that little explanation on the use of Spanish surnames. I guess both of us are right, then. Pietro insists on using only the Cardinal's paternal surname while I, being British, went for the maternal one because it's at the end. Ah, the finer details of European etiquette!

I am not Spartacus said...

I agreed because it is a way to show people it is normal to use the 1962 missal: there are two forms of the same Rite but there is only one Rite, so it is normal to use it during mass celebrations

It is not the same rite despite repeated claims that it is.

The Roman Rite was destroyed by Bugnini-Bouyer-Montini and anyone who has read Fr Cekada's great book, "Work of human hands," has been intellectually inoculated against these claims.

The new mass is an anthropocentric supper celebrated by the assembly and the real mass is theocentric offered by a Priest as a sacrifice of propitiation.

As for S.C., Bugnini wrote that too.

DominicusPiusMaria said...

@Alen Aversa

You're not the only one who has seen this fact. This unacceptable fact really. From a Cardinal even who's occupied with TLM stuff. There are Rubrics for a reason!

This is exactly the reason why some Fraternities (no names here) advise against MP-TLMasses.