Rorate Caeli

Cardinal Burke on "mutual enrichment"

The Catholic News Agency's November 28, 2011 article / interview on Raymond Burke's first year as a member of the College of Cardinals has garnered attention primarily for its prediction of coming persecution against the Catholic Church in the U.S.A. Our readers might find the following passage to be of equal if not greater interest:

Cardinal Burke is also responsible for overseeing the Church's liturgy as a member of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship.

He is grateful to Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for giving the Church "a font of solid direction" regarding worship, based on the Second Vatican Council's vision of a "God-centered liturgy and not a man-centered liturgy."

That intention was not always realized, he said, since the council's call for liturgical reform coincided with a "cultural revolution."

Many congregations lost their "fundamental sense that the liturgy is Jesus Christ himself acting, God himself acting in our midst to sanctify us."

Cardinal Burke said greater access to the traditional Latin Mass, now know (sic) as the "extraordinary form" of the Roman rite, has helped correct the problem.

"The celebration of the Mass in the extraordinary form is now less and less contested," he noted, "and people are seeing the great beauty of the rite as it was celebrated practically since the time if Pope Gregory the Great" in the sixth century.

Many Catholics now see that the Church's "ordinary form" of Mass, celebrated in modern languages, "could be enriched by elements of that long tradition."

In time, Cardinal Burke expects the Western Church's ancient and modern forms of Mass to be combined in one normative rite, a move he suggests the Pope also favors.

"It seems to me that is what he has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally produce a new form of the Roman rite – the 'reform of the reform,' if we may – all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent."


  1. If Hegelianism is true, a combined rite should happen naturally.

    Of course, it isn't and it won't.

  2. Tom the Milkman6:00 PM

    "In time, Cardinal Burke expects the Western Church's ancient and modern forms of Mass to be combined in one normative rite, a move he suggests the Pope also favors."

    So, even at this late stage of decay, another 'new' liturgy is envisioned as the end game, some sort of chronic conglomeration of Catholicism and Conciliarism. The ancient Roman Mass is not the problem. The problem is the new ecclesiology out of which was born a numbing, neo-protestant liturgy called Catholic. The problem is the Roman authorities' intransigence in defence of that ecclesiology and its bastard rites, to directly quote Monseigneur Lefebvre's characterization of the new liturgy. They cannot make us be Protestants! Such was Lefebvre's thundering cry at Lille. My soul is content with that.

  3. Anonymous8:53 PM

    The Novus Ordo enriches the traditional Roman Mass with new attendees. I'm one of them!

  4. Why to wonder and be angree? They are simply pronouncing the "party-line". As far as I remember either Cardinal Ratzinger or pope Benedict XVI in one of his interview books with Peter Seewald expressed this same opinion that in some distant future there will be one Roman rite again. One would like to add that hopefully it will be the traditional one. I do not think, however, that the present curia is able to launch another liturgical reform in the manner of Bugnini; i.e. making a new Consilium and preparing the New Roman Missal with a mixture of NO and 1962 calendar (of course, with Septuagesima restored) and various prefaces as well as synthesized lectionary (hopefully without awful division in A, B, C years), etc. Even less they would be able to impose it on all NO crowd. :) Therefore, we do need to worry that much at present. On the other hand, such opinions also help in certain way for TLM cause. Moreover, that Cardinal Burke himself is celebrating Pontifical Masses rather often.

  5. This proposal for a "Missa Normativa" contains no words which support the continuing availability of the TLM once the "Missa Normativa" is promulgated in the future.

  6. OREOMAN12:42 AM

    We have a problem.. the N.O IS not man center. Its worse than I thought.

  7. The admission that the New Rite needs to be enriched by the Old is an admission that the 'reform' of the liturgy was botched in the 1960s. So why can't they say it in so many words? Pride. To save face, they talk of mutual enrichment, but how can the Old Rite be enriched by the deliberately de-catholicised, botched Novus Ordo Missae? Only in the tiniest of ways, such as the 'et omissione' in the Confiteor, as pointed out in the Ottaviani-Bacci critique. Otherwise, forget it.

  8. Ecclesia Militans1:02 AM

    This was unfortunately their politics from the very beginning. It is only now becoming clear.

    When reading this and similar statements from the Vatican who can now deny that they don't want the Mass of All Times? They just want to use it to stop the liberals who have gone too far, in both liturgy and doctrine.
    This is the same as what the SSPX Superior for South America wrote in the leaked letter to his priests - Rome needs the Society to stop the progressives from going too far into open rupture.

    The sad truth is, Rome is using everyone - the SSPX, the Ecclesia Dei communities, Traditional Catholics and the Mass of All Times to limit the power of the progressives and to maintain the current "moderate modernism".

    Their plan is to use all of these above for as long as it suits them, and then to effectively dispose of them all by promulgating a new exclusive rite which will be the epitome of "moderate modernism".

    The Mass is the expression of the Faith. Then why doesn't Rome want the Mass of All Times (or wants it only temporarily)? The answer was given by mons. Lefebvre - because they have lost the Faith. They are now at best semi-Catholic and to them the Mass is something foreign because it is integrally, fully Catholic. That is why there is a lack of understanding from the bishops. They all just want to keep their middle between Catholicism and apostasy. Well, it doesn't work. Like the famous picture shows, when you go down the steps of modernism you end up in atheism.

    Moreover, their puppet masters don't want their middle position - they want the complete destruction of the Church.

    A. K. Emmerich: "I saw again the strange big church that was being built there in Rome. There was nothing holy in it. I saw this just as I saw a movement led by Ecclesiastics [traditional movement] to which contributed angels, saints, and other Christians. But there in the strange big church all the work was being done mechanically according to set rules and formulae. Everything was being done according to human reason ...I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed very successful. I did not see a single Angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw the seat of the cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: " Do build it as solid as you can; we will pull it to the ground."

    But in the end both this plan of modernist Rome and that of its masters will utterly fail. We must put our trust in God and in the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

    A. K. Emmerich: "Such was to be the new Church. . . But God had other designs."

  9. There is a penchnat here for not wanting criticism of Cardinal Burke, among others, but in all sincerity he is part of the liturgical problem. With statements like these it ought to be more obvious now. His views on liturgy are totally anti-tradition and subversive. He is part of the contemporary problem in the church. It looks orthodox but under the suface it just is not. The papacy is completely misled where the Roman Catholic liturgy is concerned.

  10. The two rites (for this in reality what they are) have nothing in common from their roots to their actual embodiment. They belong to completely different paradigms and are irreconcilable. One is absolutely Roman catholic, the other is liberal modernist with protestant overtones.

  11. With statements such as these their initiator is certialy no friend of the Traditionalists.

  12. "In time, Cardinal Burke expects the Western Church's ancient and modern forms of Mass to be combined in one normative rite, a move he suggests the Pope also favors."

    I am ready to fight against this appalling project - the ultimate attempt to deconstruct The Latin Mass of All Times & destroy Pope St Pius V's great liturgical works. This is not a reform of the reform.

  13. This is a disturbing line of thought. So in the end, the Mass of Ages is to be used to 'dress up' an intrinsically flawed NO - is the TLM then to be cast aside??

  14. "mutual enrichment"

    Euphemism for the abrogation of The Latin Mass of All Times according to "Quo Primum". This is definitely not traditional but postmodernist diversity by other means.

  15. "He (Burke) is grateful to Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for giving the Church "a font of solid direction" regarding worship" -- You must be kidding.

  16. Why are you afraid of the forms of the mass mutually enriching each other? This had happened to the form of the mass we all love. The TLM as we know it would not be in the form we all know today had it not been enriched by the forms existing then.

    This is a natural process. Live with it.

  17. We do not need to "live with' this false notion of "mutual enrichment" because we know and have confidence in all the magnificent liturgical codifications of Pope St Gregory The Great and Pope St Pius V who have given to us The Latin Mass of All Times in the Roman Rite form which the great expert in The Roman Rite Fr Adrian Fortesque tells us is the most ancient of all rites. Codifications stripped away other accretions not considered the norm.

    Furthermore, we do not require any elements of a protestant anthropocentric rite which is directly responsible for the current state of ecclesiastical liturgical chaos; pastoral confusion and declining chief indicators. It as absolutely nothing at all to offer the Latin liturgy which perfectly embodies The Roman Catholic Faith with all the necessary doctrinal guarantees.

    Live with that!

  18. A Loyal Reader4:20 PM

    LeonG, You are spot on! Cardinal Burke, once thought of as a friend, is showing his true colors. Just another errand boy delivering the same old tired message: "All is well!!! Our new mass just needs a little (more) tweaking. Can we borrow from your perfect Mass of ALL TIME so ours' might seem a bit better? " He "expects...the forms of mass to be combined" and suggests that the Pope favors this as well. I expect God to defeat these men in their enterprise and I will do all I can to resist them and to hamper their plan. Amen.

  19. A Loyal Reader Said

    When the SP was issued it was obvious that the "two forms one rite" condition was the opt-in clause for attacking The Latin Mass and replacing it eventually. The implied mutual acceptance of both has also given the NO epsicopate the opportunity to block traditionalists on the grounds, false or otherwise that they do not accept the NO. Any traditionalist in his right mind would never accept this un-Catholic rite. Anyone who could not see it then should be able to see that now although they may not wish to. Denial is certainly no solution. Even members of the SSPX realised only too well that Benedict XVI understands perfectly the mind of the orthodox traditionalist. Study the structure of the SP carefully.

    On the other hand, when you comprehend the psychology of the liberal modernist who is a true liberal, as Benedict XVI is, then you are very well prepared for what will come next. Of course, neo-conservatives & johnny-cum-latelys like many here cannot follow the real thread liturgically because they see tradition the moment they see dalmatics and communion on the tongue. These are the mere trappings which they have fallen for.

    As I keep saying and I will insist on it - The Latin Mass of All Times is in greater danger now than it has been at any other time in its history because what appears a restoration is but a diversion. Be ready and prepared for the next stage of the struggle. There is a very long pathway ahead.

    This papacy has no intention of restoring The Latin Mass - it has only one objective which is to exploit it as a vehicle for hybridisation which is already underway.

  20. Mutual enrichment?

    Each Monday night at 7:00 P.M., Saint Mark's parish in Plano, Texas, (Dallas Diocese) offers a Novus Ordo Latin Mass.

    1. The desire of those present at that Mass to worship via Latin was not acquired, at least in our diocese, through the Novus Ordo.

    Liturgical Latin all but disappeared in Dallas decades ago.

    That is reflected in Pope Paul VI's 1969 introduction of the Novus Ordo when he declared the following:

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

    2. Gregorian chant has been featured at each Mass. That tradition had all but disappeared from Mass in the Dallas Diocese (and throughout much of the world).

    That is reflected in Pope Paul VI's 1969 address:

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

    3. From the beginning of the Monday night Masses, almost all women and girls present have worn headcoverings.

    That tradition was not acquired via Monsignor Bugnini and the Consilium.

    4. Several communicants have received on the tongue as they have knelt.

    That is the Traditional practice.

    5. Reverent silence has been observed prior to and following Mass as well as at appropriate times during Mass.

    While the Novus Ordo did not technically abolish such silence, for all practical purposes, the chatty nature of the Novus Ordo has encouraged chatter among Catholics at Mass.

    At least in the Dallas Diocese, chatter prior to, during and following Mass has been the norm for decades.

    Therefore, the worshipers present at the Mondy night Masses did not acquire their determination to
    embrace reverent silence via their Novus Ordo liturgical

    6. On the negative side, if yuo will, EMs have been employed at each Monday night Mass — that is a Novus Ordo practice.

    7. On the negative side, if you will, manufactured "Eucharistic Prayers," rather than the Roman Canon, have been featured at various Monday night Masses — that is a Novus Ordo practice.

    I could continue. But I apologize for my lengthy post which, of course, may be reduced to the following:

    The Novus Ordo is riddle with novelties.

    Traditional prayers and practices that may be found within the Novus Ordo flowed, of course, from the Traditional Roman Mass.

    Therefore, the only manner in which the Novus Ordo may "enrich" the Traditional Roman Mass is via the introduction of novelties into
    the Traditional Roman Mass.

    Please, Cardinal Burke, do not
    ask us to accept the notion that
    the Novus Ordo can "enrich" the Traditional Roman Mass.


  21. The NO liberals are full of absolute nonsense - they even have the audacity to credit JP II (RIP) with helping to restore The Latin Mass. This is the pope who really put liturgical inculturation on course for what is taking place now. Study the masses he was responsible for when he was on his "pilgrimage" around the world - the praxis is NO at base with local cultural appendages. We had it all - clowns, acrobats, circuses, shamans, dancing, bare-breasts and whatever. Further, when he referred to Roman Catholics who still wanted The Latin Mass he cited sentimental reasons.

    One has to discern the wood for the trees with the post-conciliar papacies. They have done nothing but tinker with the liturgy and now think they can correct everything by hybridising the two paradigms regardless of their true natures - one organic and entirely Roman Catholic carrying with it all necessary doctrinal guarantees while the other is protestant in spirit, revolutionary, novel, liberal and "fabricated". Let us never forget this.

  22. LeonG said:

    "We had it all - clowns, acrobats, circuses, shamans, dancing, bare-breasts and whatever."

    Isn't this on of the many reasons why there is a need to reform? Just as the Church did not find it necessary to return the Roman Rite to its pristine state of Pope Gregory the Great but rather accepted the "embellishments" it had acquired but stripped of additions considered abuses, so will the reformed "hybrid" (if you want to call it that way) liturgy will be. In the end, the extraordinary form will prevail but with the good elements (NOT ABUSES) of the novus ordo. DEAL WITH IT.

  23. Thank you for your divination, o Prophet Jose!

  24. Ecclesia Militans3:53 AM

    To A Loyal Reader:

    Amen! Amen!

    LeonG, I agree with you completely except for one thing, that we have a long path ahead.
    Looking at the situation in the world, and especially the impending communist revolution, after its swift and utter ruin, according to Catholic prophecy, it is clear that the triumph of the Church and the restoration of the rights of God is close indeed.
    Let us be prepared.

    Amen veni Domine Iesu

  25. Until you understand the nature of the Latin Mass of All Time and that of the protestant NO you will never follow the resons why it is an uacceptable rite from a Catholic perspective and why it is so easily abused and will continue to be so. You apparently have little understanding of the principle of embodiment. Destroying The Roman Rite in its customary language & form will do nothing to help the NO. It is a fabricated rite with inherent weaknesses. These cannot be overwritten by translations, chnages in rubrics, infusions of traditional elements or by merging it with The Latin Mass.
    You have little liturgical understanding - Jose said. Moreover, neither the Tridentine Councils nor Pope St Pius V accepted vernacular Masses as a principle and this was anathematised. One would assume from Sacred Tradition on the liturgy that only the post-concilar papacies found this admonition worthy of contempt. As a consequence dearly has The Church paid for their nonchalance.
    In many places, Catholics have died for the right to have The Latin Mass, as they did in Henrician England. Some of us are ready to do the same for it today.
    The NO is seriously defective - this is undeniable otherwise they would not be changing it every few years.

  26. To highlight the point here separately, Pope St Gregory The Great reformed and codified The Latin Mass which Pope St Pius V did nothing in essence to alter. The latter only removed localised additions. Pope St Pius V did not initiate a new rite but only reinforced the codified rite of his great predecessor. This rite of Holy Mass has remained mostly untouched since the early sixth century with essential elements having been established in Apostolic times.

    The rest I leave to Fr Adrian Fortescue:-
    ""All later modifications were fitted into the old arrangement, and the most important parts were not touched. From, roughly, the time of St. Gregory we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details [until the Second Vatican Council].....................
    Essentially, the Missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book, which depends on the Leonine collection. We find the prayers of our Canon in the treatise De Sacramentis [of St. Ambrose, c. 340-397] and allusions to it in the IVth century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all."

    Paradoxically, whle all popes since the so-called "reformation" have protected the liturgy and hence The Faith from the plague of
    protestantism the post-concilar papacies hae done just the opposite. No wonder the liturgy is in such a mess.

    With the help ofprotestant advisors Pope Paul VI (RIP) deconstructed the entire liturgical bastion against doctrinal error. The revolutionary nature of the changes incorporated in the New Rite of Mass are striking, and as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci stated:
    "The Novus Ordo Missae - considering the new elements, susceptible of widely differing evaluation, which appear to be implied or taken for granted - represents, as a whole and in detail, 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."

  27. Ecclesia Militans8:08 AM

    What are the "good elements" of the NO Mass, that are not already present in the Mass of All Ages?

    If there are none, then what is this "mutual enrichment" but introducing a repackaged version of the NO.

    And then, what choice do we have but to say no!

  28. The difficulty with trying to conceive rationally of an ideal Roman Rite is the same problem that emerges in trying to come up with a systematic theology that is compact and complete: the object exceeds our discourse.

    Sure one can say that it would be better for more of the Scripture to be read at Mass and invent a new lectionary, add a reading and a Psalm to boot, but this lectionary does not in a year come close to presenting the whole of Scripture. Can I not then argue that significant portions of God's Word are *still* being neglected, and that we need a more comprehensive lectionary still?

    Likewise with the prayers: perhaps it is conceivable that we should pray not only for forgiveness in thought, word, and deed, but also in omission. But nonetheless we might also think to confess excess and defect. We might think to modify the orations in any number of ways, to include, express, and invoke more and more things. I could tack on to the liturgy ad infinitum, and that just with worthwhile things...

    Why not sing the whole Introit psalm instead of just a verse? Likewise with the Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory, and Communion? It never ends.

    This way of thinking leads nowhere. The only answer to it is that custom must dictate the Church's worship. Custom as She has received it. Otherwise, the bar will be set too high for us to reach, and it will fall to arbitrary judgment and taste what is to be included and omitted.

    It would be 'good' if we had many things, but it is not possible for us to have everything.

  29. "The difficulty with trying to conceive rationally of an ideal Roman Rite...."

    We have one already - it is perfect in its embodiment of The Faith. The major problem is that those who want to change it are never satisfied with what they have and are unable to bring an active interior disposition to it.

    Pope St Pius V and The Trent Councils did a marvellous work in handing on to us The Latin Mass as codified by Pope St Gregory The Great. This did not require any messing about: it is the advoactes of change and novel ideas today who need to change themselves.
    Better to restore what we have almost lost rather than hybridise and lose it for ever in endlessrounds of alteration and modification to suit the modernist whim of the moment.
    Those who constantly harp on about change & modification are obviously not at ease with themselves. Leave those alone who are - we love The Latin Mass of All Times as bequethed to us by Pope Pius V. It does not need chnaging.It is perfect when said or sung properly and we come to it with serenity, after Confession and ready to accompany The Blessed Virgin at The Foot of The Cross with Our Blessed Saviour. Everything else follows naturally.

  30. LeonG,

    Perhaps you should read whole posts, no? You might find we are on the same side.

  31. Froben

    It is not the posts I am respondiung to necessarily but to the notion of altering the Latin liturgy. It is only since the pontificate of Pope Pius XII that anyone has dared to touch the liturgical rite deemed perfect for all Latin Rite Roman Catholics for at least 1600 years. Since the tragic and ill-informed changes to the Easter Triduum in the 1950s there has been no stopping liturgical liberalisers and ignoramuses. We have been subjected to the subversive idea that somehow changing the liturgy is a laudable goal. It is not.

    In fact, it has distorted the true objective of changing interior disposition at Holy Mass by restoring to Christ what truly belongs to Him. Changing this ancient and perfect Rite has been disastrous. Those responsible have to be held to account for the remaining wreckage. It is the greatest scandal of Church history because it has led to systemic disunity; desacralisation, abomination on a global scale and ultimate desolation. By unleashing the smoke of Satan upon the church the liberals and their liturgy have brought immense and ever-increasing darkness upon us all. After nearly a lifetime observing and suffering the liberal modernist onslaught and everything this has meant and signified this is one liturgical scholar who has had enough of such abhorrant nonsense.

  32. LeonG,

    We are in accord.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

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.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!