Skip to comments.Interview with His Eminence Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos
Posted on 06/02/2004 5:14:31 PM PDT by gbcdoj
This interview is reprinted with the kind permission of The Latin Mass Magazine.
Interview with His Eminence
Care to say what a 'right of citizenship' entails? (I haven't the foggiest notion.)
Besides, this celebration has reassured many of the faithful that the venerable Rite of Saint Pius V, enjoys in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, a "right of citizenship", as I said in my homily. There can be no doubt about the fact that this Rite has not been extinguished. The event at St. Mary Major has, in itself, assisted in clarifying this issue, where any doubt might have previously existed because of certain misinformation.
"Thank God the group of Campos has come out of a situation which COULD HAVE brought about a state of formal schism."
Assuming these words of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos are reported correctly, then it looks like he does not think that even the Campos situation had yet developed to a formal schism!!!
"So, where there had been a bishop, priests and a group of independent faithful, the same Mons. Rangel and his priests, by an act of humility and repentance, responding to the invitation of the Holy Father, now felt an obligation in conscience to reenter into full communion with the Church, recognizing that the conditions of what they had considered as a so called "state of necessity" no longer existed."
Looks like the answer for the SSPX is to set up full parallel ecclesial structures (including a bishop) in each diocese where they are active until such point that a critical, self-sustaining mass is achieved. Once done, a state of necessity would no longer exist and then Rome would grant an Apostolic Administration.
The precedent of Campos could prove to be a vehicle for restoring Tradition to the whole Church which would circumvent the majority of non-believing bishops that we must currently contend with!
Our Lord only had praise for those who were battering down the gates of the kingdom of heaven to enter it by force - perhaps the times are ripe for desperate measures again.
Thanks for providing the p.c. version of events - and now for some plain speaking on this subject.
Modernists (masquerading as Catholics), in the wake of Vatican 2, succeeded in perverting the Roman Rite. Here's how it happened:
Here's a pertinent historical perspective:
and here's some sage insight on the Campos compromise:
I have a question, what is your opinion of the Novus Ordo done the way Bromton Oratory does it?
That's it, in a nutshell. Dialog, not demands, is the answer.
"I have a question, what is your opinion of the Novus Ordo done the way Brom(p)ton Oratory does it?"
It's much better than what I have to put up with!
Why do you ask? Are you familiar with the Oratory?
Mike, the Catholic Church is both Western and Eastern; it recognizes 22 'rights of citizenship'. In the Western Church alone, it recognizes the following 'rights of citizenship' (perhaps liturgy is a more descriptive term).
A Rite represents an ecclesiastical, or church, tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. Each of the sacraments has at its core an essential nature which must be satisfied for the sacrament to be confected or realized. This essence - of matter, form and intention - derives from the divinely revealed nature of the particular sacrament. It cannot be changed by the Church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, tells us what is essential in each of the sacraments (2 Thes. 2:15).
When the apostles brought the Gospel to the major cultural centers of their day the essential elements of religious practice were inculturated into those cultures. This means that the essential elements were clothed in the symbols and trappings of the particular people, so that the rituals conveyed the desired spiritual meaning to that culture. In this way the Church becomes all things to all men that some might be saved (1 Cor. 9:22).
There are three major groupings of Rites based on this initial transmission of the faith, the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). Later on the Byzantine derived as a major Rite from the Antiochian, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. From these four derive the over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Church today.
Western Rites and Churches
Immediately subject to the Supreme Pontiff as Patriarch of the West
ROMAN (also called Latin)
The Church of Rome is the Primatial See of the world and the Patriarchal See of Western Christianity. Founded by St. Peter in 42 AD it was consecrated by the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul during the persecution of Nero (63-67 AD). It has maintained a continual existence since then and is the source of a family of Rites in the West. Considerable scholarship (such as that of Fr. Louis Boyer in Eucharist) suggests the close affinity of the Roman Rite proper with the Jewish prayers of the synagogue, which also accompanied the Temple sacrifices. While the origin of the current Rite, even in the reform of Vatican II, can be traced directly only to the 4th century, these connections point to an ancient apostolic tradition brought to that city that was decidedly Jewish in origin.
Roman - The overwhelming majority of Latin Catholics and of Catholics in general. Patriarch of this and the other Roman Rites is the Bishop of Rome. The current Roman Rite is that of the 1969 Missale Romanum, to be published in a third edition in 2001.
- Missal of 1962 (Tridentine Mass) - Some institutes within the Roman Rite, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, have the faculty to celebrate the sacramental rites according to the forms in use prior to the Second Vatican Council. This faculty can also be obtained by individual priests from their bishop or from the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei.
- Anglican Use - Since the 1980s the Holy See has granted some former Anglican and Episcopal clergy converting with their parishes the faculty of celebrating the sacramental rites according to Anglican forms, doctrinally corrected.
Mozarabic - The Rite of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) known from at least the 6th century, but probably with roots to the original evangelization. Beginning in the 11th century it was generally replaced by the Roman Rite, although it has remained the Rite of the Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Toledo, Spain, and six parishes which sought permission to adhere to it. Its celebration today is generally semi-private.
Ambrosian - The Rite of the Archdiocese of Milan, Italy, thought to be of early origin and probably consolidated, but not originated, by St. Ambrose. Pope Paul VI was from this Roman Rite. It continues to be celebrated in Milan, though not by all parishes.
Bragan - Rite of the Archdiocese of Braga, the Primatial See of Portugal, it derives from the 12th century or earlier. It continues to be of occasional use.
Dominican - Rite of the Order of Friars Preacher (OP), founded by St. Dominic in 1215.
Carmelite - Rite of the Order of Carmel, whose modern foundation was by St. Berthold c.1154.
Carthusian - Rite of the Carthusian Order founded by St. Bruno in 1084.
There is no need for the SSPX to do that. Rome has offered a universal Apostolic Administration to the SSPX already, what would in effect be a world-wide diocese.
I never been there(never been to Europe even), But I heave heard from many people who have, and they say their Latin Novus Ordo, at least in terms of externals, is almost identical to the Tridentine High mass, would such a mass be acceptable to many who want tradition, but can not get an indult?
I myself am probably liberal for a traditionalist, I do not have a problem with a reverent, Traditional leaning Novus Ordo, but I also like the 62 missal. If a Novus Ordo is sung in Latin, using the Confetior and Canon I, I really do not see how it can be considerd "inferior" to the Tridentine mass.
By the way, speaking of rites, here is the Dominican Rite ordinary
Note how short its offertory is
Also of note, even before the liturgical documents of Vatican II were voted upon in late 63, the TRidentine mass was starting to be picked apart.
It's apparent from the wording used throughout this interview that English is NOT the native tongue of Castrillon-Hoyos. Hence, it then becomes necessary to 'interpret' statements. What is meant by 'citizenship'? My interpretation is aligned to the divisions of the 'churches' and their respective rites. As such, the "Mass of the 1962 Missal' qualifies as a 'citizen'. Just my interpretation but it seems to fit.
Of one thing you can be certain, there will be no general rollback of the Novus Ordo Rite. It's here to stay! From there, one moves on in selecting a 'rite' in which the most suitable form of reverence and respect can be shown to our Lord. All 22 rites are recognized.
Rome offered that? When?
Methinks that the translation from Italian to English may have been a bit, ah, 'stretchy.' Either the interviewer or the Cardinal didn't have the precise term, whether in Italian or in English.
In late 2001, from what I understand, Rome did offer the SSPX a similar status that Opus Dei now has, and be able to exist in various dioceses without the permission of the local Bishops.
Those who call it "inferior" are particularly concerned about a few major items, e.g., the significantly-altered Offertory prayers, the lack of Ps. 42 at the entrance, the single "Domine, non sum dignus..." before Communion, and some other less obvious and less major items--such as the fact that the readings are NOT done in Latin.
But on the whole, you are correct; the Latin rendition of the NO is very much like the 1962 Rite.
Again, while I do wish the 62 missal(with the option for some vernacular) restored as the prime missal, Psalm 42 is especially neede dto be heard today, just look at again the Dominican rite missal, that I posted earlier in this thread. I had an offertory shorter than the Novus Ordo, and it had no prayers at the Foot of the altar.
On Rubrics of course, I think the Tridentine rubrics should be fully restored to be the norm.
As for your Archbishop, he face sthe situation of being given a house that has been trashed, and tenants who wont leave.
"they say their Latin Novus Ordo, at least in terms of externals, is almost identical to the Tridentine High mass, would such a mass be acceptable to many who want tradition, but can not get an indult?"
Yes - at the oratory the N.O. Latin Mass is offered exceedingly beautifully and many traditionalists would have less qualms about attending the new rite if it was offered in this way everywhere.
However, one of the main reasons that the new rite liturgy is conducted in this way is that 6 out of the 8 priests at the oratory also celebrate the Tridentine Rite! The fact that they love the old Mass rubs off on the way they do the new.
Tridentine Low Mass is offered at 10.00 am in the "Little Oratory", and Sung Latin N.O. Mass is offered at 11.00 am in the main Church. (Just in case you ever do make a trip to London).
At least when the N.O. Mass is said in Latin we get to participate in the same Mass and Prayers that in theory the rest of the Roman Church is participating in. English speakers have been deprived of this right for the last 30 years!
"If a Novus Ordo is sung in Latin, using the Confetior and Canon I, I really do not see how it can be considerd "inferior" to the Tridentine mass."
While the externals are not necessarily inferior, the lack of precision, ambiguity, and shady theology of some of the prayers are still a problem with the N.O. Mass even when said in Latin.
My interest in the restoration of the Tridentine Rite is not so much to do with the Latin as it is with the orthodoxy of our worship. I would be quite content with an accurate English translation of the old Mass, if suitably dignified language were to be used.
IMHO orthodoxy is a much bigger issue than which language we celebrate the Mass in - though I am cognizant of the arguments for the use of Latin being a defense of orthodoxy.
"But on the whole, you are correct; the Latin rendition of the NO is very much like the 1962 Rite."
This is nonsense. There is a radical difference between the two Masses. Merely because the N.O. is rendered in Latin does not make it any less deficient than the version in the vernacular. It has not simply altered the Offertory--it has junked it altogether--just as Martin Luther had done--and this is a fact whether in Latin or in any other language. It has exchanged the sacrificial structure for a structure predicated on a memorial meal--exactly as Protestant liturgies do, in open contradiction to the mandates of Trent. Neither does it express adequately the propitiatory purpose of the Mass as mandated by Trent, even as it subverts the dogma of Transubstantiation--exactly as the vernacular does. Worst of all, its notion of sacrifice is Protestant, not Catholic, since it is a "sacrifice" of thanksgiving and praise, not that of an actual immolation--just as in a Lutheran worship service. In fact, its only advance on the vernacular version is its less pedestrian language--but this is only a minor advantage. It remains dangerous to the Catholic faith.
You wont find me defending how the NO came to be or how it is celebrated in most parishes, but the rites in the west had different offertories.
Here is the one found in t he Dominican rite, it is quite short>>>>>>>
What shall I render to the Lord for all that he hath rendered to me?
I will take the chalice of salvation and will call upon the name of the Lord.
Receive, O holy Trinity, this offering, which I present to thee in memory of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ: and grant that it may ascend to thee worthily in thy sight, and may bring about my eternal salvation and that of all the faithful.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the web site
Even this shorter form recalls the Passion of Christ and links this to the "chalice of salvation." That is a far cry from the Novus Ordo which makes no mention of the sacrifice to come nor to the victimhood of Christ in any way. Everything is done to emphasize the meal aspect--in the Protestant manner.