A Reason Some Panicked
  • Hello all,

    I have a theory here for why certain liturgical-minded people panicked at the choice of Pope Francis. Talk about a collective-ist, digital mid-life crisis, (without regarding age).

    To us who have spent a great deal of time trying to beautify the Mass by adding chant and polyphony and other beautiful anthems and hymns, we had an active champion in Benedict XVI. He has produced a 'generation' of people who now can lead from the bottom, up.

    But what happens when we don't have an active champion and maybe someone who sort of just leaves the matter alone without much thought? (Again, this is based on worrisome speculation - perhaps this Pope will be the one to get more people to love orthodox music...?) We won't dip into the 70's/80's folk genre, no, and neither will the rubics change. But will we, as it is perceived from our head, be just another alternative, another choice?

    This would be sad on many levels. This has never been about just beauty. It's also about the power of edification behind that beauty. It helps increase the knowledge and faithfulness of the Catholics entrusted to our musical care. It provides a sense of God's majesty, which is essential to making a love of God relevant. (This gets lost all too often, in my opinion: if God is just a buddy and not a God of tremendous power, majesty and splendor, why do I need to offer him my "first-fruits"? Also, it's only through realizing the power of God that we come to appreciate His desire for communion, for intimacy with us. "God is so great, and yet He desires to love me in all my weakness... Oh, the dignity!"

    On a more human level, our music is, at times, difficult: difficult to sing, difficult to play, requiring much practice and dedication. It's also less toe-tapping. It takes people out of their comfort zones, out of what they hear on the radio and into an idiom that seems other-worldly. This is all fine and good, and should be desired, but it also represents a threat. It brings us to the cross, to suffering, to hardship. While we get the "I arose and am still with You, Alleluia!" we also get the "The troubles of my heart are multiplied..." (Ps. 24) kind of lyrics with their corresponding chants/music.

    A fair question would be, if this music and kind of Liturgy is seen as just another alternative between equals (if the Vatican leads in this way) - "WHY? Why would anyone choose what could be seen as an exercise in self-destructive morbidity?" Furthermore, to all of you who have suffered a loss in position; who have had to move your families around the country (or world) just to be able to escape the raging parish/parishioner/pastor who punished you for being faithful - it sort of begs the question: "What am I doing this for? Did I really have to stick my neck out on the line for what is right when it turns out it was seen as no more right than any of the other options on the table? Is that why I risked my family's security, home, and comfort?"

    I think this pick made people respond with so much angst because they feared a sense of purposelessness or at least perceived purposelessness. But then the teacher-part of me kicked in:

    Every student is called to learn as much as he/she can. It is good for them. They may have a great teacher, they may have a mediocre one or a poor one, too. But they still must learn what they can. The teacher could throw them parties and could do lots of things to offer them thrills and comfort. But in the end they are responsible for their learning, their objective. Similarily, no matter how good a liturgical teacher the Vatican is or will be, we are still called to do what we can to offer our services "towards the edification of the faithful". Why? Because it is good. Edification leads to knowledge and love of God and appropriately love of neighbor. Love of God is essential, naturally.

    Just as no student can look back and, if he really wants to move ahead, simply blame the teacher and leave it at that, we can not, we must not be content to just blame the Vatican if certain things don't go our way. That will not be a valid excuse. The goal, the objective remains the same: Heaven. If sacred music "exists for the glory of God and the edification of the faithful" then we needn't change our plan. We still have to help lead souls to God. This Pope will, I'm sure, help lead souls to God; he may or may not emphasize Sacred Music's helpful role in this pursuit, but this is our trade, our skill, and so we will do it "for the glory of God!"

    I have grown more confident in the last 36 hours of the potential good God will do through this Pope. I only wrote this because I wanted to examine why I was fearful in the first place. And, through the Holy Spirit, I think He has calmed me down to think more clearly.

    God bless you!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,979
    Time will tell, as it always does, whether or not the panic was justified.
    Thanked by 1expeditus1
  • I posted on another thread that we, as DM's and musicians were given the basis with which to build on by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit's choice of Pope Francis will NOT negate the sacred musical good of Benedict. As the saying goes: "Give a man a fish and he eats today....teach a man to fish and eats forever"....Benedict taught us to fish. It is up to us now to bring the food to others.
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    There is never a good reason to panic - God works all things to the good.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    We'll know more in the next week.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    Well, the Cuomo family poo-poo'ed him. That's a good sign: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130314/BLOGS04/130319927
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    There's always an opportunity to cultivate greater detachment....giving in to the need to follow and form opinions and comment, or worse, spin in either direction, can be a reminder of the need for such opportunities to embrace uncertainty. Without uncertainty there cannot be faith (certitude gets confused with faith; faith involves trust, the fire for which necessarily has some element of uncertainty as its oxygen; certitude is for machines, not living souls).
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I think we have reason to be positive.

    When you think about it we still have Burke, Ranjith, Scola, Canizares, Sample, Saratelli, Morlino, Olmstead, Elliott, Chaput, Wadsworth, Marini, Lang, Ried, Weber, Kelly; the Canons of St John Cantius, the FSSP, the Oratorians, Benedictines, the Ordinariates; we still have Mahrt, Tucker, Oost-Zinner, Poterack, Bartlett, Ostrowski. We have also Sacrosanctum Concillium, Musicam Sacram, Tra le solicitudine. We also have the great legacy of Mary Berry, Theodore Marier, Louis Boyer, Eugene Cardine, Joseph Pothier, Andre Mocquereau, Prosper Gueranger; St Pius X, Pius XI, Ven. Pius XII, Bl John XXIII - even Paul VI was a great lover of chant (he had the monks from San Anselmo sing the chant at Papal functions). AND, we still have Benedict XVI praying for the Church he loved and served, and I am sure, for the New Liturgical Movement that he help to foster; he is praying for each of us now when he says his Mass - ad orientem, no doubt, in brocade fiddle-back with a lace albe - perhaps even using the 1962 Missal.

    I think we can learn something from the Anglicans here : the Anglo-Catholic movement was a grass-roots movement. It started with a handfull of priests at Oxford - its principles codified in The Parson's Handbook, and flourished, from the ground up, when the priests and musicians reared in this school of liturgics became the bishops and organists.

    We have been in the darkness for the past 50 years - with people like Joseph Ratzinger as the champion of the NLM; he came to the fore and planted the seeds, these seeds need, perhaps, to grow in silence now. Our cause is not over now that Benedict is no longer on the Throne of Peter; we have no shortage of champions today, we have more than we had for the past 50 years - many of them prelates, most of them young - time is on our side.

    I must confess that I was rather dashed at first; but the more I listen to what the new Holy Father says the more I like him - perhaps he needs a few months to grow into his new office, no doubt he is nervous, and concerned about being his own person under the shadow of the still living Benedict. He says he will be meeting with Benedict soon - I pray that that meeting will be fruitful for both the Emeritus and Reigning Bishops of Rome. It seems many have the same complaints today about Francis v. Benedict as people had in 2005 about Benedict v. JPII. No doubt Papa Bergoglio has come to teach us something important; after all, it was Ven. Paul VI who gave us Humanae Vitae - a document which we now need more than ever, a document for which even the SSPX should forgive him for his handling of the Liturgical Revolution.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,979
    Yes, but remember that Paul VI probably caused a greater loss of faith than any of the Protestant reformers. I didn't say he wasn't a saintly man, just an incompetent and misguided pope. I wan't to have reason to hope. I'm still waiting for the reason.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "Carnival time is over"

    And might I remind that "vir selecti" in the mandatum refers exclusively to males. Pope Francis, as a bishop, seemed to disagree.

    This is why many are panicked.

    I don't consider these serious issues, myself. I don't see why women can't have their feet washed, or why a red cape is so darn important. And I think it's about time the Vatican in general got a big honking shot of humility. But what worries me is that these ruptures will embolden those who stand against more important elements of liturgy, such as language, music, orientation, etc. How will we justify orchestral Masses against a pope who recites the liturgy? How will we justify million-dollar organs in a Church led by a man who takes the bus everywhere?

    I'm not so much panicked by the Pope's pre-election and potential action. I'm panicked because of the shift in Church liturgical culture that this could cause. And I think those who aren't concerned are willfully blind to a great danger to the progress made over the last few decades.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Spriggo Mike R
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,979
    I don't think for a moment Benedict XVI needed red shoes, proper vestments, or symbols of office for his ego. I think he realized that we, as visual animals, believe what we see. Authority is respected when the proper symbols are seen and recognized.
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    But what worries me is that these ruptures will embolden those who stand against more important elements of liturgy, such as language, music, orientation, etc. How will we justify orchestral Masses against a pope who recites the liturgy?


    The dioceses with bishops in favor of looney liturgy will continue. Likewise with bishops with their heads screwed on right. The real test comes when new bishops/cardinals are appointed. One good test diocese in America will be the Rochester where the bishop waged a 33-year scorched-earth policy against anything traditional doctrinally and liturgically and now the DoR is bottom of the barrel in Mass attendance, new vocations, and is on the short list for most school/parish closings.

    Now the Albany bishop is in charge until a new bishop is appointed. Who gets it will reveal much.



  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    This whole aura of speculation on "what does it all mean" is sport, pure and simple, and unbecoming a people who together recite or sing "Credo" at every Mass. That we allow ourselves to reduce the conversation to the regurgitations of thousands of professional catholic talking heads' analysis of unsubstantiated reportage, vestry by compare and contrast, and pro or con sound/text bytes given credence simply by their public utterance strikes me more as a TMZ/National Enquirer predominant culture, than of the BBC/Wall St. Journal culture. "Oh look, 'he's' not wearing Versace ermine, the sky will fall" or "Oh look, he's riding the bus and paying his motel bill, we're Christians again and the world likes us, really likes us!" aren't in Christ's playbook, as far as I'm aware. God made a covenant with us for the last time at Pentecost, and we have assented and should cling to that covenant and all that it means as grown-*ss adults, and not children speaking like children and banging gongs and clanging cymbols.
    We are NOT going away to the elephant graveyard. We will remain armed if only with our voices speaking or singing His Holy Name which we claim as our own in a world being swept away into evil and violence that is all too real, all too ignored if it's to the east or west of us, and a religious ideology that cares for its poor just as it does its infidels, by destroying life and discarding dignity.
    Give the man some time.
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    I can't believe I'm doing this, but I have to credit NPR. They brought on a very smart Catholic lady (can't remember her name. Egglestart?) and although she was in the orthodox camp, they let her have her say and the interviewer asked fair questions without being a jerk about it. Now I'm sure later in the day they brought out the usual menagerie of malcontents, but that they didn't have the usual official gainsayer on the phone to act as a stump-the-troglodyte was refreshing.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    I doubt Rochester or Albany will be signals, given that ternas have probably already been assembled (certainly in the case of Rochester).
  • Blaise
    Posts: 439
    The pope is important, by will of Christ, but may I submit that it is equally, if I may say with a gulp, if not more, are the bishops he appoints? Even then, much of the episcopal decision making process is made at the national level, with ternas being submitted to the Holy See for final choices.

    Will they (the bishops) be faithful servants of our Lord God in all matters, not just liturgy?

    I doubt Pope Francis is going to toss out all the papal rulings of past regarding sound liturgy and sacred music, so why don't we put that one to rest.

    Right now he has other fish to fry, including the fact that many Catholics scarcely attend the Eucharist at all, let alone one of true beauty.
    Thanked by 2Spriggo francis
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    My point exactly Paul.
  • JIF, thank you for speaking about this subject.

    You might enjoy reading these reflections, which seem apropos:

    Dr. Theodore Marier & Pope Francis

  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    Some people complained over the past 5 years about that Pope Benedict never publicly celebrated the EF. In retrospect, that looks like genius to me - now it's not tied to him personally, regardless of what happens.
    Thanked by 1Chrism
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    CharlesW - The man who gave us Humanae Vitae was "mis-guided and incompetent"?

    "What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,979
    Humanae Vitae was about the only thing he did right. I am about convinced that the Holy Spirit likely forced him to do it. I am old enough to remember how he nearly apologized for it. He was a great waffler, and what he would do, he would try to explain away. It was interesting when he talked about the smoke of Satan entering the Church. He was the one who held the door open while the smoke entered. Paul VI complained about abuses, all the while dismantling the safeguards that prevented the abuses.
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    Jeff O writes above (in the linked article) that "Pope Francis appears to be less interested in Liturgy than his immediate predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI."

    But the early signs (and they're still early, I realize) are that he's MORE interested in liturgy than Benedict, in the sense that he's taking charge and making liturgial decisions from the get-go, surely more than Benedict did in his first 72 hours in office.

    awr
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Once again, Fr. AWR, welcome to a forum that accepts divergent views, and, for the most part, doesn't tolerate its editor determining the course and winding of the conversational thread. It seems to me that you and Rita have an understood pact to silence any criticism that discredits either of your own opinions when they do, and THEY DO, cross the moral lines of common courtesy, not to mention the ecclesiastical bonds we laity have in not discrediting the ordained in a blasphemous manner.
    Long live Pope Francis.
    Blessings,
    Charles
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Please define "more interested," and in what ways his interests exceed those of the Pope Emeritus, as you state in your comment, Fr. Ruff.

    We are in a time of complete uncertainty, and some are looking for any sign, however small, that there will be some kind of continuity. I'm truly saddened, and at times embarrassed and disgusted by the vitriolic attacks and character assassination that is being lodged by those in the "traditional" (liturgical) camp against Pope Francis. I am equally appalled by those who are ready to cast aside and invalidate the good work done by the Pope Emeritus. We all need time to absorb and process what is happening at this moment in the history of the Church. In many ways, the barque of Peter had cast out on uncharted waters- a Jesuit from a New World country taking a hitherto unused name as our Holy Father.

    Speaking personally, I am doing my level best to remain impartial as far as the choices His Holiness is making with respect to liturgical practice, but I am also keenly aware that there are those who are poised and ready to take every little thing he does as the cue to dismiss the work and example set by Benedict and invalidate them as nothing more than excessive, triumphalistic and pompous displays.

    I guess we are living in "interesting times" as the blessing-cum-curse says.
    Thanked by 1Chris Allen
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Paul VI is proof positive that the Church is divinely guided. (Though perhaps Alexander VI is better proof.) He would probably not have issued Humanae Vitae on his own, but it was the Holy Spirit that guided him to do it.
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 783
    melo-
    feel free to show some charitable self-restraint or start a new thread in which to aim your not-so-subtle barbs at Fr. Ruff, instead of attempting to derail this one.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • charchar
    Posts: 19
    I agree completely with the orignal post on this thread by JIF. I, too, have been nervous by what the future may hold for all the reasons shared in this thread and countless others; however, I am at the conclusion that if I truly believe what I am doing in the work/ministry God has called me to is what He and His Church is asking of me to do, than there is nothing to fear. I pray for the strength, regardless what the future may hold, to stay the course and the wisdom to know what that course is to be. There is always something to be learned and this new Pope, as all others prior, will offer opportunites of growth for the church if we allow it. Perhaps if the future proves that Pope Francis I is not so interested in chant, polyphony, etc and what we know to be the direction liturgy should be progressing, we can even learn from that and reflect more and more on the source of this ministry and calling. Maybe it will mean we will be tried even more than we have before but I trust in the blessings of God upon all who remain faithful to Him and His Church. If God has called us to where we are, He will lead us through it all. I'm so very thankful we have another Pope who is very strong and bold in the true Catholic moral teachings. I trust God will provide for all things and I know that if He has called me to this work of music in His Church, He will bring forth all I need to do His work. The readings for this 5th week of Lent remind us how He is doing something new. We must trust in His promises - that they apply to all things - and not become so heavily burdened in our hearts about things we cannot change or don't even know to be true. We never can be sure any of us will have tomorrow given to us so why be so heavy hearted and even insulting to one another, when we are hopefully all traveling this road together and have been called to the same ministry within His church? Does it please God to doubt those He has called to certain positions and to even start to attack one another? We must support one another and take each day as it comes while we continue to pray for our Pope and all church leaders for all things.
    Thanked by 1Jenny
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I believe the reason for Fr. Ruff's statement that Francis cares more about liturgy is that Francis has immediately shifted liturgical styles, where Benedict moved quite slowly. Remember some of the horrid vestments that he suffered under, especially on his Austrian travels?

    I think it would be more accurate (though Fr. Ruff may disagree) to describe Francis simply as more direct than Benedict about his preferences. I don't think there's any indication that Francis holds the liturgy as a major priority, but rather that he has strong feelings about how he should execute it as pope, as a matter of personal style.
    Thanked by 3chonak CHGiffen BruceL
  • Perhaps I should clarify that I am not listening to the media reports (which I don't feel bad about, since a friend of mine who worked for four Popes told me they have been completely off base).

    I am basing my statement on the actions and published writings of B16 during his lifetime vs. the actions and published writings of Pope Francis during his 76 years of life.

    As in all things, I could be wrong. That being said, I have yet to see a single serious person put forth the idea that (during his previous lifetime) Pope Francis has shown a greater interest in Liturgy than Cardinal Ratzinger did.

    More importantly, I would invite folks to read my entire post.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Joy, you don't know the half of it, but thank you ma'am, may I have another?
    OTOH, the thread is called "A reason some panicked." Over at PTB, it's the wild west and AWR/RF are definitely Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterston, letting hell break loose if it abets the "correct" POV. Fine. Joy, I've long realized that I'm not your, nor a lot of folks' cup o' tea, but you're not in the catbird's seat for all perspectives. Get over it. I have.
  • I spent three months about 25 years ago at New Mellary Abbey, the Trappist house in Iowa. I met a number of monks who had known Thomas Merton and, generally, had a very positive and ascetic experience there, being allowed actually to sit in choir with the monks for the office and the mass. The music was not at all bad. It was mostly a sort of chant styled English. Liturgy, though, was very low church with absolutely no solemnities or ceremony of any kind and little, if any, singing of priestly parts. The good monks told me, almost with a degree of pride, that they were the puritans of the Catholic Church. I would not be surprised if a similar 'aesthesis' was not typical of the Jesuits, as it is of a number of orders which, unlike the Benedictines I have known and know about, are not at all appreciative of high liturgy. This is an irony that never fails to puzzle me: that a priest, whose principal distinguishing mark is that of sacerdotal ordination centred on the sacrifice of the mass, does not have the faintest understanding of why he should celebrate this Holy Mystery with any particular ritual splendour. As some have pointed out, this is not at all in keeping even with the admonitions of our new holy father's namesake, Francis of Assisi. It would have been nice had our cardinal-electors chosen a Benedictine, but one doesn't wish to be less than thankful for the Holy Spirit's choice. We have, no doubt, much to learn from Francis' emphases, which should not be altogether anything but welcomed, aided and abetted.
  • I listened to the Pope's words today from his St. Anne homily. Quite beautiful, and yet very simple. It was very edifying. (That seems to be my word of the week...) Much of his talk has been the centrality of Christ, which, of course, seems basic enough.

    However, we can make full use of this. Sacred Music, particularly chant, is all very Christological. Go to a reverent Novus Ordo or a TLM Mass, and what are you struck with? The centrality (literally) of Jesus Christ. Go to a misguided folk-style Mass and what are you struck with? Songs about the community, me, we and I. Nauseating, to say the least.

    The chant is a prayer to Christ and about Christ. It is not a statement of our own goodness, worthiness, etc... We can and should make this point time and time again!
    It is not about preferences. It is the language the Church gives for a fundamentally simple purpose: the worship and glory of God, and the edification of the faithful.

    The Holy Spirit could do some amazing things with this Pope. Even if he doesn't take up the active lead in sacred music, if Christ and prayer are central foci of his pontificate, and he leads in this gentle way, and WE do our part in showing how what we do is really in keeping with this, he could (even inadvertently) lead many people to a greater love and appreciation for Sacred Music.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Pope Benedict wrote to the Italian bishops in 2010, citing the words of St. Francis of Assisi about the sacred liturgy:


    "EVERY TRUE REFORMER IS OBEDIENT TO THE FAITH"

    From Benedict XVI's message to the Italian bishops gathered for their general assembly


    [...] 1. In these days you have gathered in Assisi, the city in which "a sun was born to the world" (Dante, Paradiso, Canto XI), proclaimed patron of Italy by venerable Pius XII: Saint Francis, who preserves intact his freshness and his relevance – the saints never fade away! – due to his being conformed totally to Christ, of whom he was a living icon.

    Like our own, the time in which Saint Francis lived was also marked by profound cultural transformations, fostered by the birth of the universities, by the rise of the townships and by the spread of new religious experiences.

    Precisely in that season, thanks to the work of Pope Innocence III – the same from whom the Poverello of Assisi obtained his first canonical recognition – the Church undertook a profound liturgical reform.

    Its highest expression is the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which numbers among its fruits the "Breviary." This book of prayer incorporated the richness of the theological reflection and prayer experience of the previous millennium. By adopting it, Saint Francis and his friars made their own the liturgical prayer of the supreme pontiff: in this way, the saint assiduously listened to and meditated on the Word of God, to the point of making it his own and then transposing it into the prayers he authored, and into all of his writings in general.

    The Fourth Lateran Council itself, devoting particular attention to the sacrament of the altar, inserted into the profession of faith the term "transubstantiation," to affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice: "His body and his blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar, under the species of the bread and wine, because the bread is transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the blood by divine power" (DS, 802).

    From attending holy Mass and receiving holy communion with devotion arose the evangelical life of Saint Francis and his vocation to retrace the steps of Christ Crucified: "The Lord," we read in the Testament of 1226, "gave me such faith in churches that I would simply pray and say: We adore you, Lord Jesus, in all of your churches in the whole world, and we bless you, because with your holy cross you have redeemed the world" (Fonti Francescane, no. 111).

    This experience also gave rise to the great deference that he showed for priests, and his orders to the friars to respect them always and no matter what, "because I see nothing bodily of the Most High Son of God in this world, if not his Most Holy Body and Blood that they alone consecrate, and they alone administer at the altars" (Fonti Francescane, no. 113).

    Before such a gift, dear brothers, what responsibility of life follows for each one of us! "Be mindful of your dignity, brother priests," Francis moreover urged, "and be holy, because he is holy!" (Letter to the General Chapter and to all of the friars, in Fonti Francescane, no. 220). Yes, the holiness of the Eucharist demands that one celebrate and adore this mystery mindful of its greatness, importance, and efficacy for Christian life, but it also demands purity, consistency, and holiness of life from each one of us, in order to be living witnesses of Christ's one sacrifice of love.

    The saint of Assisi never stopped contemplating how "the Lord of the universe, God and Son of God, is so humble as to conceal himself, for our salvation, in the paltry appearance of bread" (ibid, no 221), and vehemently asked his friars: "I beg you, more than if I were doing it for myself, that you humbly beseech the priests that they venerate above all things the Most Holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy names and the words written of him that consecrate the body" (Letter to all the Custodians, in Fonti Francescane, no. 241).

    The authentic believer, in every time, experiences in the liturgy the presence, the primacy, and the work of God. It is "veritatis splendor" (Sacramentum Caritatis, 35), nuptial event, foretaste of the new and definitive city and participation in it; it is the bond between creation and redemption, heaven open to the earth of men, passage from the world to God; it is Pascha, in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ; it is the soul of the Christian life, call to follow, reconciliation that moves to fraternal charity.

    Dear brothers in the episcopate, your coming together places at the center of the work of the assembly an examination of the Italian translation of the third standard edition of the Roman Missal. The correspondence of the prayer of the Church (lex orandi) and the rule of faith (lex credendi) shapes the thought and sentiment of the Christian community, giving form to the Church, the body of Christ and temple of the Spirit. Human expression can never stand completely outside of its time, even when, as in the case of the liturgy, it constitutes a window that opens to what is beyond time. Giving expression to a perennially valid reality therefore demands a wise balancing of continuity and newness, of tradition and revitalization.

    The Missal itself takes its place within this process. Every true reformer, in fact, is obedient to the faith: he does not act in an arbitrary manner, he does not appropriate any discretion over the rite; he is not the owner, but the custodian of the treasury instituted by the Lord and entrusted to us. The whole Church is present in every liturgy: adhering to its form is a condition of authenticity for what is celebrated. [...]

    From the Vatican, November 4, 2010

    Benedict XVI

    (quoted from: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345540?eng=y)

  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 783
    Fine. Joy, I've long realized that I'm not your, nor a lot of folks' cup o' tea

    Actually, melo, I've had no problem with you until this very moment. Interesting how quickly you jumped to that conclusion....

    A blog owner can write or monitor however they want; (if someone has a problem with that, perhaps they ought not to read that blog,) but I see no sense in dredging your issues with that up in a completely unrelated thread on another board.
  • For what it's worth, I like both of you, marajoy and melo, and would drink a cup of tea with both of you! :)

    Thanked by 1marajoy
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    For what it's worth, I like both of you, marajoy and melo, and would drink a cup of tea with both of you! :)
    Agreed, and I'd even go far as to pony up as share a bottle (or two) of Far Niente. :)
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    That's nice to know, Joy. There've other posts in the past where I wasn't sure if barbs were laid out for me.
    Points taken.
    As we all have experienced, many of us (me? A lot.) go tangential here in these threads a lot. We then self-correct (or not) and carry on. Yes, we're also quite aware that AWR/RF can manage their site as they wish. However, when they themselves cross the lines of propriety and then systematically (within their rights) suppress open discussion of those transgressions at their site, THEN feel the freedom of being able to come over here and add their tuppence knowing they'll get a fair hearing, that is quite irksome to me personally and smacks of blatant hypocricy. My intent was not to derail our own thread, but to remind AWR of just who the true progressives really are. I am sorry to have annoyed and engaged you in my curmudgeonly ire. Apologies to all.
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    Actually I agree with Gavin up above (where he disagrees with me). Pope Benedict showed more interest in liturgy by far in all his writings for decades before he was elected. The difference - as Gavin said - is rather that Pope Francis is more directive about changing the liturgy immediately, rather than slowly like Benedict did.

    And let it be said: I myself have questions about the wisdom of such sudden changes, even when I support them. Ordinarily, change should be slow and gradual, with sensitivity to the feelings of those who built up the previous way of doing things.

    The only monkey wrench here might be (and this is pure speculation on my part) that the forces of pent-up frustration are so strong among the cardinals and bishops that they are ready for a clean slate and an all-out cleanup. They've certainly been blunt in their public comments ever since Pope Benedict's resignation. They've got to know that Rome has been a laughingstock in the public eye for quite some time, and that has to have hurt them greatly. Maybe that collective pent-up frustration is now getting vented.

    I'm also concerned about Pope Emeritus Benedict, and I hope he doesn't feel hurt or rejected by recent events. I've been praying for him since the resignation, and even more so since the election. I suspect he's strong enough and humble enough to handle things just fine. Perhaps he's relieved to be freed from a mess that he had had enough of.

    awr
  • Fr. Ruff, I haven't followed your posts at all. Could you let me know what changes you support that are proportedly being done? I'm not really clear where you're coming from here.

    Thanks!
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    I'm really confused. What has Pope Francis changed so suddenly about the liturgy? I must have really missed something.
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    Could you let me know what changes you support that are proportedly being done?

    What has Pope Francis changed so suddenly about the liturgy?


    Thirded.
  • If you mean he's wearing plainer vestments and dark (not red) shoes, well...ok.

    I know we like to read a lot into everything, but I'm not seeing it, and I usually see it... :~)
  • Fr. Anthony Ruff said (March 18th 2013): Pope Francis is more directive about changing the liturgy immediately, rather than slowly like Benedict did. And let it be said: I myself have questions about the wisdom of such sudden changes, even when I support them. Ordinarily, change should be slow and gradual, with sensitivity to the feelings of those who built up the previous way of doing things.

    ???????

    What specific changes have been made to the liturgy?
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    Like everyone else I only know what I've been able to observe so far. I don't know what's coming next and I don't want to make any predictions.

    I was thinking of his first appearance on the loggia as liturgical, but that may be stretching it. I'm also thinking of his vesture in the liturgy. The changes I see so far are no ermine red cape, wears bishop's miter and pectoral cross rather than papal, moved the six candles on altar to the sides, preached without miter and at ambo, black shoes not red, doesn't sing orations (could be because of lung or singing ability).

    All the other things point in the same direction, but they're outside the liturgy - coming down from platform to greet cardinals rather than them coming up to him, getting up from chair at papal audience to thank first speaker, calling them "brother cardinals" rather than the customary "lord cardinals," being seen today drinking the herbal drink from president of Argentina (popes don't consume anything but Eucharist in public), and so forth.

    The general trend is toward simplifying rituals and ceremonial and clothing. Some of this is within liturgy but so far most of it is outside the liturgy.

    I won't do a point-by-point here, but I will say that I like most of Francis' changes but not all of them. As I just posted at PTB, I don't care for his papal coat of arms at all.

    It will be interesting for all of us to observe whether or not there are more changes going forward.

    Pax,
    awr
  • awr, I would suggest that you have gotten confused about legitimate options in the Novus Ordo liturgy versus true innovations.

    I am not aware of any changes whatsoever that Benedict XVI made to the Novus Ordo liturgy itself, but I would be glad to hear if I am wrong.

    The Novus Ordo allows for many legitimate options during celebration of Mass. You might want to carefully read a post by Kathleen Pluth:

    http://www.chantcafe.com/2013/03/amy-welborn-reads-my-mind.html
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    OK, sorry if I'm confused. Wouldn't be the first time! Thanks for your help.
    Right, the changes aren't to the Novus Ordo - they're all changes in style as allowed by the Novus Ordo. But they're still changes, I think we can all agree.
    I don't quite follow Welborn and Pluth though - they're arguing that Benedict was just doing what the rubrics say and what the Church calls for. No, I rather agree with you: we're in the realm of legitimate options, whether it's Benedict's or Francis's decisions, so I don't see how you can say that all Benedict's changes are anything more than that.
    Pax,
    awr
  • Gavin -
    We will justify million-dollar organs when Holy Father Francis takes the bus everywhere by reference to the liturgical views of St Francis of Assisi, who, while devoted to great simplicity in personal habits and demeanor, was yet adamant about the unmitigated splendour that should characterise celebration of the Eucharist and the worship of God. Many have been the scholars, theologians, and mystics who have wasted no words in debunking the false dichotomy between personal poverty of life and the appropriate grandeur of the Lord's house and the worship offered within it.

    Too, I have seen on the web-site of the cathedral in Buenos Aires that it is graced with a seemingly fine program of polyphonic music, plainchant, and organ music. It also seems to be a well-looked-after church of baroque glory.

    A priest I once knew related this anecdote about a high Mexican church official who, when it was suggested to him that the gorgeous cathedral should be sold and the money given to the poor, replied that 'this belongs to the poor: it is all they have'. (Rather echoes Jesus' own affirmation about the precious ointment, doesn't it?)
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    AWR,
    Sorry to intrude again on a thread here. Thanks for now officially including me among the banished anethema at PTB for speaking the obvious in truth. Your worm has turned, gaudete, laetare.
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    Another take: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=975

    Teaser:
    I think Pope Francis was laying the groundwork for a new understanding of the Petrine office: one that will drop the trappings of monarchical power and emphasize instead the role of the Bishop of Rome as the focus of unity for the universal Church.
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    awruff said:
    Right, the changes aren't to the Novus Ordo - they're all changes in style as allowed by the Novus Ordo.
    . . . I rather agree with you: we're in the realm of legitimate options, whether it's Benedict's or Francis's [sic] decisions, so I don't see how you can say that all Benedict's changes are anything more than that.

    I could not agree more. Anyone claiming Pope Francis has started some kind of "liturgical revolution" is either woefully misinformed or suffering a severe case of "wishful thinking" if they desire so-called progressive changes to the Novus Ordo.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,509
    Amy Welborn has spoken for herself. So have I, but for those who willfully misunderstand, I don't mind saying it again.

    There are those who would like to make every liturgical decision into a partisan issue. They think that the translation of the Roman Missal had to reflect a theological and ecclesiological agenda--as a not-so-random example.

    But reality is not at all like this. The thing is, we have a liturgy. There it is, the Roman Missal. The People of God deserve the Roman Missal, not some Americanist Land Reform progressivist spin on the Roman Missal, but the Roman Missal itself. The people, and, God knows, the priests, have been starved for the prayers of the Mass. Now we have them, and we have Pope Benedict to thank for that.

    People with an Americanist agenda have lobbied against the retranslation of the Roman Missal. From their point of view, fostered by mid-Western graduate liturgical faculties, I suppose they can't help but feel that there is a Romanist, Tridentine agenda at work. But that agenda is not at all the basis of this reform. The agenda at work is pastoral. God's people deserve a liturgy that isn't spun tortuously towards the left, that isn't reduced to blatant horizontalism. The People of God deserve a liturgy that fosters Roman Catholic prayer, not American semi-Pelagian self-concepts masquerading as prayers.

    Just as an example.