tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post5509902330489143402..comments2023-06-01T09:22:18.917+01:00Comments on Liturgiae Causa: A go-between year...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-78815090529511078872011-02-17T16:36:08.777+00:002011-02-17T16:36:08.777+00:00Pachomius,
"First, your reference to Missal-...Pachomius,<br /><br />"First, your reference to Missal-mumbling, prayer beads and (unnecessarily, in my view) peasantry: Is this not the mode of worship in much of the Orthodox world? And is it, of necessity, a bad thing?"<br /><br />The Orthodox have retained the traditions of Saturday Vespers or Vigil, and matins before Sunday liturgy. <br /><br />The languages that the Orthodox use may not be the *modern* vernacular of their respective languages, but after a little practice understanding the liturgy is not difficult. <br /><br />And anyways, the Rosary and the Jesus Prayer are very different sorts of prayer.Judge373https://www.blogger.com/profile/13749134457209322067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-32560645151455381182011-02-17T16:34:18.291+00:002011-02-17T16:34:18.291+00:00Patricius and Rubricarius, I agree with both of yo...Patricius and Rubricarius, I agree with both of you entirely but I am a little surprised that no one has even attempted to leap to the defense of SP. The silence since I submitted my last post is deafening and very revealing. The only thing I can hear is a house of cards collapsing.Tawserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12823690750419031274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-52124749239933040722011-02-17T05:02:03.421+00:002011-02-17T05:02:03.421+00:00Okay, Patricius.
So, when you do that as a pastor...Okay, Patricius.<br /><br />So, when you do that as a pastor of a parish, what do you do when the bishop suspends you for it (and he will!)? What is your next step?<br /><br />As a bishop, what will you do if many priests in your diocese rebel en masse to your new dictates (and they will!)? <br /><br />It's very easy to order and pontificate from our armchairs. But actual tradition-minded pastors (both priests, bishops, and our Pope who is certainly in sympathy with a lot of your positions) have to take into account current realities while working for restoration.Geraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02204199533749851084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-38897807740566330282011-02-16T23:24:25.592+00:002011-02-16T23:24:25.592+00:00Tawser,
It is the hermeneutic of 'Continuity ...Tawser,<br /><br />It is the hermeneutic of 'Continuity in Contradiction' - what is black becomes white, and what is white becomes black.<br /><br />Alas, some of us are too sinful to understand it - or not taken in by a pack of lies.Rubricariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-56390534610591756442011-02-16T22:14:35.298+00:002011-02-16T22:14:35.298+00:00Tawser, you speak very shrewdly. Until 1984 it was...Tawser, you speak very shrewdly. Until 1984 it was a given that the '62 books were abrogated, which is precisely why there was an Indult for permission to use them.Patrick Sheridanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995907911415177074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-44778877678704596742011-02-16T22:12:13.026+00:002011-02-16T22:12:13.026+00:00James C, as a parish priest I would act liturgical...James C, as a parish priest I would act liturgically. I would wisely introduce the Old Rite (in as many of its forms as I possibly could) into mainstream parish life. I certainly wouldn't hide behind the Papacy to justify any of it.<br /><br />As a diocesan bishop I would again act liturgically. I would set an example in my own celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy in the cathedral and encourage the promotion of the Old Rite in the diocese and encourage the training of parish choirs. I would also visit my parishes to make sure that things are being done properly.<br /><br />As the Pope I would do nothing. The Papacy has nothing to do with Liturgy.Patrick Sheridanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995907911415177074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-985266578157273992011-02-16T18:51:18.925+00:002011-02-16T18:51:18.925+00:00I know very little about canon law, but could some...I know very little about canon law, but could someone please answer the following question: if the traditional Mass (however one defines that term) was not abrogated, then why were its proponents subjected to such intense persecution while Rome did nothing to defend them from celebrating what we are now supposed to believe was always a legal rite? And if it was never abrogated why was there a need for an indult?Tawserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12823690750419031274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-14568739407469036212011-02-16T16:25:06.366+00:002011-02-16T16:25:06.366+00:00Then, Patricius, tell me what YOU would do, as
1)...Then, Patricius, tell me what YOU would do, as<br /><br />1) a diocesan priest<br /><br />2) as a bishop<br /><br />3) as the Supreme Pontiff. <br /><br />As a pastor, what would your solution be?Geraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02204199533749851084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-73670642055210551432011-02-16T13:03:22.813+00:002011-02-16T13:03:22.813+00:00James C, I thought I argued against that in this p...James C, I thought I argued against that in this post?<br /><br />''How can you accustom people to Tradition if what you provide them with is little older than (and in many cases is inferior to anyway!) the stuff you're trying to extricate them from?''<br /><br />I'm sorry but the liturgical books of 1962 are a delusion, and have no intrinsic value at all whether in terms of Liturgy or even aesthetics - they will be regarded by posterity as an abberation.Patrick Sheridanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995907911415177074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-67402391178129396762011-02-16T00:41:52.093+00:002011-02-16T00:41:52.093+00:00Patricius, another thing about Pope Benedict's...Patricius, another thing about Pope Benedict's use of "numquam abrogatum"---it is pretty clear from his writings that Benedict does not believe that the Supreme Pontiff even has the authority to abrogate the traditional Roman rite. So whatever Paul VI's intention, he did not have the rightful authority to eliminate it. <br /><br />1962 is a bit of of an arbitrary place to set the standard, but what is the alternative? 1965? 1967? 1960? 1954? 1910? All equally arbitrary. Might as well set it at 1570. <br /><br />In these still-early years of the restoration, you have to start somewhere. When there are thousands of parishes accustomed to the traditional Roman rite, perhaps that will be the time to move things back if a consensus forms on *where* to go back to. <br /><br />In the meantime, let's grit our teeth and work for the Good even if the Perfect isn't yet attainable.Geraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02204199533749851084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-63451184192398989382011-02-15T23:01:43.308+00:002011-02-15T23:01:43.308+00:00Salve Patricii!
May be helpful to recall the pre-...Salve Patricii!<br /><br />May be helpful to recall the pre-Sum. Pont regime was based on 4 Adhinc annos which placed the power to allow the 1962 Books was in the hands of the Bishops:<br /><br /> "On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called "Tridentine" rite was almost completely solved.<br /><br />Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:<br /><br />"b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.<br /><br />c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin."<br /><br />http://www.adoremus.org/Quattuorabhincannos.html<br /><br />The Indult was to make legitimate the actions of those who resisted the Novus Ordo and continued to use the Old Books (often pre-62). There had been indults to individual elderly priests given by Paul VI to continue using the Old Rite but this was the first time the needs and desires of the laity were considered. <br /><br />Sum. Pont. removes the power of the local Bishop and allows the laity to ask for Mass using the 1962 books. The Pope's "numquam abrogatum" is a recognition of the fact that the Old Rite was never completely and properly abolished - it clung on and was never extinguished. <br /><br />Some four years ago opposed the idea of a Universal Indult because they preferred to rely on Quo Primum. <br /><br />The real problem with Sum. Pont. in my view is how to understand how the 1962 and 1970 Books can described as Uses. Has there ever been a Liturgy which was a Rite and then became two Uses?Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15560006282627072784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-57910675774181846352011-02-15T21:33:25.756+00:002011-02-15T21:33:25.756+00:00Patricius,
You have much antagonism for the 1962 ...Patricius,<br /><br />You have much antagonism for the 1962 Roman Liturgy. Do you reject the Pius X Psalter with the same fervor?Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09607872200269447167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-3421793536757313902011-02-15T21:18:09.460+00:002011-02-15T21:18:09.460+00:00Could someone come up with an objective, non-arbit...Could someone come up with an objective, non-arbitrary definition of what the "Old Rite" is? Also, reasons for the definition?Geraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02204199533749851084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-45717751250539603632011-02-15T20:16:21.570+00:002011-02-15T20:16:21.570+00:00A very good post Patricius.
The 'Traddies'...A very good post Patricius.<br /><br />The 'Traddies' <i>used</i> to argue that the Old Rite had never been abrogated as it was protected by immemorial and centennial custom, e.g. Capponi, DuLac, Glover etc.<br /><br />This is a valid and interesting argument that the 'modernists' never answered. When the 1984 indult came along the opposition to Rome's changes that had been characteristic of Traddies in the 1960s and 1970s mutated to sycophancy. With this came the equating of 1962 as 'old rite' which Traddies in the previous decades would never have made.<br /><br />As to abrogation the simple question has to be asked as to whether the 1962 rite could be used after the changes mandated by <i>Inter Oecumenici</i>. The answer is negative. At that stage the 1962MR was derogated. Likewise after the changes of <i>Tres abhinc annos</i> neither the 1962 rite nor the 1965 rite were an option. The 1962 rite was further derogated.<br /><br />When the Apostolic Constitution <i>Missale Romanum</i> was promulgated the standard abrogatory clause ended anything other than was protected by immemorial or centennial custom. To abrogate either of those 'specific mention' has to be made - a good example being that found in <i>Divino afflatu</i>. However, 1962, by clear definition, could neither claim the protection of immemorial or centennial custom, it was abrogated. The Old Rite certainly was not. If Traddies maintain <i>Missale Romanum</i> is non-abrogatory (for non-immemorial or non-centennial custom e.g. the 1962MR) a comparison of other legislation in the RCC would show it as worthless.Rubricariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-65175714359728210152011-02-15T19:18:56.427+00:002011-02-15T19:18:56.427+00:00Patricius, I'm sorry but I don't think you...Patricius, I'm sorry but I don't think you argued that in that post. I will read Tomas later, no time right now, sorry..https://www.blogger.com/profile/04611694996611765479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-14340769408707887442011-02-15T19:14:44.803+00:002011-02-15T19:14:44.803+00:00Tomas, interestingly you point out Quo Primum'...Tomas, interestingly you point out Quo Primum's 200 year stipulation. But is that not a stinking red herring? I mean if the liturgical books of 1962 can claim 200 years actual use then I'm a Dwarf...Patrick Sheridanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995907911415177074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-48899342880613995132011-02-15T19:09:05.811+00:002011-02-15T19:09:05.811+00:00Against my better judgment, a few comments...
Fir...Against my better judgment, a few comments...<br /><br />Firstly - I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that Pius VI's words there could be construed as stating that the juridical power of the Church is now promoting this new Missal and not past missals. If that is the case, it does not mention an abrogation, but simply signifies that the Old rites(s?) are still permissible, but will not be "aided" by the juridical and temporal powers of the Church (offering proper translations, promotion of their usage, etc.). Ultimately, that would make this a second Quo Primum, where the Novus Ordo is in place of the Tridentine and without any specific abrogation of any rite (as Quo Primum did with its 200 year stipulation).<br /><br />If the above is sound (which I will happily listen to any reasons as to why not though that may devolve into semantic issues - an important matter that far too many want to handwave away) where is the documentation which officially abrogates any liturgical books prior to Pius VI?<br /><br />The books fell out of use, in my thinking, because we pretty much had an episcopacy that just did what Rome did and a priesthood that lived out their obedience to these bishops.<br /><br />Secondly - I am confused about your comments regarding what I take to be that which is commonly called the Liturgical Movement. Were you in favor of the direction this movement was going, or simply pointing out that the leadup to the Novus Ordo existed before 1962?<br /><br />Much of the research that came out of the movement was focused on the ressourcement currents spearheaded by De Lubac and Danielou and is the source of much of our scholarship concerning the rites of the ancient and medieval world. Admittedly, when this research got into the hands of pastors, it was read through the lens of the relativistic spirit of age and gave us the atrocities that trads think epitomize the Novus Ordo.<br /><br />Thirdly - What do you see as Benedict's gameplan? Would you have rather he wielded that papal power rad-trads believe he possesses (and both you and he so detest) to enforce the Old Rite?<br /><br />Give me a moment to rant about my theological hero. A number of individuals are beginning to point out that Benedict himself is not following that strict rule of not mixing 1962 with the NO in his own Liturgy. The man detests the legal view of things and wants to find the true tradition without causing huge scandal in the Church. He's made multiple comments that his office is limited by tradition (even Pastor Aeternus, when read in context, limits the power of papal infallibility, though most people think that final paragraph proclaiming the matter is exclusive of the previous paragraphs). He basically wrote Dei Verbum which makes clear that the tradition of the Church is on par with (and, in some forms, even prior and superior to) scripture. His Wednesday Catechesis are working to bring the living tradition (the great men and women of our past) back into the center where rubrics, laws, and an un-spiritual reading of scripture have taken its place. He's working to find a way to get Catholics to be Catholics in substance rather only in name. Thus he will not enforce a certain form of the Mass but is promoting a proper ground-up renewal - one steeped in knowledge and experience of the tradition - rather than simply mandating a Mass formed by "those who know what's right."<br /><br />Finally - Given everything you say here, what do you say we do about all this? I think we understand who we have to detest by this point in time and why. You apparently don't like Benedict's approach to returning to a proper liturgical life. What then is your approach?Tomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871814767313979455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-74515671151062204472011-02-15T19:07:07.990+00:002011-02-15T19:07:07.990+00:00Pachomius, the whole point of this post was that t...Pachomius, the whole point of this post was that the liturgical books of 1962, which are NOT the ''Old Rite'' by any stretch of the imagination, were juridically abrogated. Therefore what Summorum Pontificum says, that they were never abrogated, is demonstrably false.Patrick Sheridanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995907911415177074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-91607859431038921392011-02-15T18:48:23.614+00:002011-02-15T18:48:23.614+00:00(pt II)
Further, I am mindful that it was mentio...(pt II)<br /><br /><br />Further, I am mindful that it was mentioned here that Bugnini sought formal abrogation of the older form of the Mass (I forget whether 1967, 1962, or pre-1962). I am also aware of the story of the priest who, speaking to Paul VI and complaining of the new (1970) Missal, received the response from the Pontiff that he had never abrogated the old one. If the two architects of the 1970 Missal, then, did not think they had abrogated the old one, it raises questions as to whether that actually was the intention, the effect notwithstanding.<br /><br />[Aside the Second: You mention "only one Prayer" - could you clarify this, please,?]<br /><br />Also not quite on topic, but I think Summorum Pontificum, combined with the 1970 Missale Romanum do something quite revolutionary which is often overlooked, in the creation of a liturgical plurality: it actually moves Western liturgical praxis closer to Eastern (at least,in the sense of the aforementioned plurality).<br /><br />I'm glad you mentioned Evelyn Waugh. That little problem has been niggling at me for a while. I couldn't work out how the quote could possibly be correct.<br /><br />On the "dialogue Mass" - was this not introduced originally in around 1910?<br /><br />You refer to Pius V and Trent "practically abolish[ing]" local custom - but this local custom (or nexus thereof) that was stopped was in fact of recent manufacture, not fixed, and (at least according to the most excellent Fr Hunwicke) riddled with abuses of the sort found in the use of the post-1970 Roman Rite in the Church today. It is precisely those genuinely ancient local customs, of estimable antiquity, and so on, such as the Ambrosian liturgy, which were preserved. <br /><br />[Aside 3: The area of the Sarum, York, and Durham Uses being in partibus infidelium at this point might just explain why they weren't treated similarly, I don't know. I would view their suppression as an accident of history, though.]<br /><br />I should also point out on the Sarum Use being "preferable", that it is not a formal Rite in itself, or even formalised, as I believe I said on your last blog. <br /><br />Finally, you say you could translate Colours of Day as an Offertory Hymn. Would you do so anyway? I for one would be amused to see the fruits of that exercise.<br /><br />Finally, as a general point: I think the answer to a lot of questions about Traditionalism lie in its origins: it was, essentially, a reaction.<br /><br />As I said, the essay was an interesting read, if not one I entirely agreed with..https://www.blogger.com/profile/04611694996611765479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-78405853197945854152011-02-15T18:48:11.541+00:002011-02-15T18:48:11.541+00:00(pt I - your system objects to posts longer than 4...(pt I - your system objects to posts longer than 4096 characters)<br /><br />Interesting article. I disagree with some of it, but still. If I might make a few comments on bits which jumped out at me...<br /><br />First, your reference to Missal-mumbling, prayer beads and (unnecessarily, in my view) peasantry: Is this not the mode of worship in much of the Orthodox world? And is it, of necessity, a bad thing?<br /><br />On changes not having been introduced suddenly: In Rome, perhaps, they were laid out simply and effectively. Those Catholics I know of the right age, however, describe things in their parishes changing very, very rapidly. <br /><br />You say that if the post-Conciliar liturgy is flawed, these flaws were present in the Church prior to the Council. I agree wholeheartedly, but disagree with the premise, not counting myself as a "traditionalist".<br /><br />On the liturgy versus populum, I believe this is actually permissable under the 1570 Missale Romanum, is it not? Certainly, St Peter's is on a West-East axis, and so ad orientem and versus populum are, in fact, the same thing. I believe St Paul Without The Walls is similarly aligned. <br /><br />[Aside: On the subject of reform, I would be interested if you have read Vagaggini (sp?) on the Roman Canon, and his identification of flaws within it, and if so, would be intrigued as to your thoughts.]<br /><br />I think the problem with Traditionalism is that the conception of Tradition espoused by Traditionalists is, to be quite honest, not demonstrably true. <br /><br />What was "organic" in the creation of the Dominican Rite during the Middle Ages? This is to take one example dating from prior to Trent, about which I am aware you have reservations.<br /><br />On the Limits of the Roman Pontiff, I would say he cannot contradict observable and indisputable fact, nor can he preach something fundamentally at odds with the faith and morals of the Church.<br /><br />When it comes to whether the Old Rite (by which I use the term loosely to mean anything prior to 1970, for the sake of brevity even if it is inaccurate) was abrogated, I would ask a question. You say that there is no evidence that the 1962 Rite was not abrogated. What evidence is there, beyond simple falling out of use, is there that it was?<br /><br />The permanent diaconate also fell out of use. Was it then de facto abrogated?.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04611694996611765479noreply@blogger.com