Said Father Gelineau : "… [I]t was my achievement to have succeeded in having an additional acclamation included in the center of the Eucharistic Prayer – the memorial acclamation. We actually wanted more, but we said to ourselves that we were more likely to get it past the bishops if we limited ourselves to one! Unfortunately, the memorial acclamation is not in the right place".
How did this new acclamation by the people get in the wrong place? It was the pope’s doing, Father Gelineau says. The Mysterium fidei ("Mystery of Faith") was originally part of the words of consecration of the chalice. The liturgists removed it, but Pope Paul VI insisted that it be included, so it was placed after the consecration. Thus it became the "lead-in" to the new memorial acclamation.
Father Gelineau was interviewed by Paul Inwood, past president of Universa Laus ...
>> A: we know that a Mass to be valid, must be celebrated in a Canonically designated space.
sorry, do we know that?
So the Masses offered on battlefields, or in the German concentration camps (sometimes for other prisoners, and sometimes in solitary confinement) were invalid? noooo....
I completely forgot that that was a thing!the same "Good Idea Fairy" who decided that everyone should bring their hymnal with them in the queue and sing loudly into the back of the head of the person in front of them, juggle their hymnal, receive in the hand, quickly consume the Host, juggle the hymnal again, and then continue singing on their way back to their pew.
I could see the 'Francis" document eventually causing the Trads to split off from the church and go their own way.
4. [...] "The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times."
21. [...] "holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself."
"the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community."
"notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided."
25. "The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible", with consultation of experts and bishops.
21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself.
4. "Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."
22. (1) Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
is present where?the light of sound tradition,
This seems like an important point: VII addressed the needs of the time, but that time was long ago.Do you understand the pontiff's grievance with traditionalists, that the traditional liturgy is being used to reject the Second Vatican Council?
I am strongly opposed to any fetishism of Vatican II, a fetishism has nothing to do with the theological infallibility of the Council itself. It was a pastoral council that took place during a time of extraordinary optimism. Today we are in a very different situation: a very dark period, extremely black. The optimism that made Vatican II is entirely forgotten. ...
...
We are in a completely different time from the 1970s. It is therefore natural that Catholics are looking for something other than Vatican II to cope with it. This does not constitute a condemnation of Vatican II per se. But this Council was the expression of another time, another era. And I fear that our aging pope does not adequately perceive the oldness of Vatican II.
the English version of SC... but the Latin on the Vatican web site...
And those words don't really solidly imply a strict replacement, let alone expressly calling for it.
We decree that this new Liturgy of the Hours may be brought into use as soon as it is published. Meanwhile, the episcopal conferences should see to the preparation of editions of this liturgical work in the vernacular and, after approval and confirmation by the Apostolic See, should fix the date when vernacular versions may or must be used, either in whole or in part. Beginning on the day when these vernacular versions are to be used for vernacular celebrations, only the revised form of the Liturgy of the Hours is to be followed by those who continue to use Latin.
It is lawful, however, for those who because of advanced age or for special reasons experience serious difficulties in observing the new rite, to continue to use the former Roman Breviary, in whole or in part, with the consent of their Ordinary, and exclusively in individual recitations.
The recent Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal
...
One ought not to think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has been improvident.
...
Let us show now, in broad lines, the new composition of the Roman Missal.
...
In this revision of the Roman Missal, in addition to the three changes mentioned above,
...
In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal.... While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, "for legitimate variations and adaptations,"(15) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all.
How could it be THE Roman Missal if there were an alternative Roman Missal (the older one) still authorized for use?
Surely the answer to this is the same as how the "Guardian of Tradition" can attempt to eviscerate it?
Well, he is the Pope. If he thinks the Mass of Pius V is counterproductive to carrying on the Church’s tradition at this point in time, that’s his judgment call to make.
Maybe a question we should ask ourselves, as self-described faithful Catholics, is maybe there’s some truth to what he’s saying.
The traditional Mass is a treasure that belongs to the entire Church, since it has been celebrated and deeply regarded and loved by priests and saints for at least a thousand years. In fact, the traditional form of the Mass was almost identical for centuries before the publication of the Missal of Pope Pius V in 1570. An almost one thousand-year-old valid and highly esteemed liturgical treasure is not the private property of a pope, which he can freely dispose of.
Therefore, seminarians and young priests must ask for the right to use this common treasure of the Church, and should they be denied this right, they can use it nevertheless, perhaps in a clandestine manner. This would not be an act of disobedience, but rather of obedience to Holy Mother Church, who has given us this liturgical treasure. The firm rejection of an almost one thousand-year-old liturgical form by Pope Francis represents, in fact, a short-lived phenomenon compared to the constant spirit and praxis of the Church.
These families, young people and priests could address to Pope Francis these or similar words: “Most Holy Father, give us back that great liturgical treasure of the Church. Do not treat us as your second-class children. Do not violate our consciences by forcing us into a single and exclusive liturgical form, you who always proclaimed to the entire world the necessity of diversity, pastoral accompaniment, and of respect for conscience. Do not listen to those representatives of a rigid clericalism who counseled you to carry out such an unmerciful action. Be a true family father, who “brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old” (Mt 13:52). If you will hear our voice, on the day of your judgment before God, we will be your best intercessors.”
Reader B says: That doesn't matter. He has the power to order anything, and that's all that matters. PS: Besides, he accused you of something: don't forget that!
Sigh, for the thousandth time: Holy Mother Church decreed that the liturgy was to be revised/reformed/changed at Vatican II. Bishop Schneider is promoting schism under the false cover of obedience to something that is against the mind of the Church.
I never expected Pope Francis' explanation for curtailing the TLM -- that groups and persons have misused the permission to celebrate the TLM as a means of sowing discord and division in the church -- to be manifested here in this forum.
How does this work out in your dioceses?The competent authority is Pope Francis, like it or not. He has delegated that authority to the bishops. At a practical level, it might be a good idea to be nice to the bishop and stay on his good side.
Our bishop did the following:
- state that we are to obey the pope, even if the decision hurts;
- explain in his own words the rationale behind TC (essentially paraphrasing the accompanying letter);
- point out that in our diocese there aren't any TLM groups known for calling into question the legitimacy of VII nor the NO (especially no FSSPX);
- already gave the required permission to most priests who offered the TLM to continue what they have been doing for the time beeing;
- dispensate from moving the TLMs away from their parish church, by lack of other churches or chapels in the diocese;
- leave intact the (single) personal parish run by FSSP priests, pointing out that canon law puts high hurdles against eliminating a parish (territorial or personal);
- clarify that according to his understanding, 'proclaiming' readings in the vernacular means: either Latin+vernacular or vernacular only, and only applies to masses with congregation.
Further our bishop encourages traditional communities to (re-)discover the Latin NO mass, which to his regret has almost disappeared from our diocese after SP - and is of course always licit without further permission and can be celebrated ad orientem.
Oddly this could equally be a critique of the Novus Ordo absolutists.No to spiritual worldliness
93. Spiritual worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the Church, consists in seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and personal well-being. ...
94. This worldliness can be fuelled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.
95. This insidious worldliness is evident in a number of attitudes which appear opposed, yet all have the same pretence of “taking over the space of the Church”. In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time. In this way, the life of the Church turns into a museum piece or something which is the property of a select few. ...
*Not sure if Timothy Kirchoff is a real person. No online exsistance after 2017. But this passage is linked to by many other publications.Last year, Pope Francis spoke openly about his misgivings about liturgical traditionalists in an interview that would serve as an introduction of a book of his sermons as Archbishop of Buenos Aires:I have been pondering this statement since I first read it. I wondered whether I was the sort of person he had in mind. Was I a “rigid” Catholic? The experience of being surrounded by the saints at the Latin Mass was one of the most profound and formative spiritual experiences of my teenage years.I always try to understand what’s behind the people who are too young to have lived the pre-conciliar liturgy but who want it. Sometimes I’ve found myself in front of people who are too strict, who have a rigid attitude. And I wonder: How come such a rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, sometimes even more.... Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.