Posted on 08/24/2017 1:33:52 PM PDT by ebb tide
Liturgical reform is “irreversible,” Pope Francis says. If he means that history cannot be undone—we can’t rewind the tape—his point is beyond dispute. But surely he does not mean that we are stuck forever with the status quo.
It is noteworthy that in speaking on the liturgical reform, Pope Francis invoked his magisterial authority: something that he has been reluctant to do when he speaks on doctrinal matters. But it is also profoundly confusing. What does it mean to speak with magisterial authority about a process?
Insofar as he is saying that the Church is committed to the process that began with Vatican II (or actually, as he rightly observes, began much earlier and reached a watershed at the Council), he is only reinforcing what Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI taught us. The only real questions involve whether, and how, the process should continue.
Virtually every Catholic, from the crustiest traditionalist to the most iconoclastic radical, will agree that something should be done to the liturgy. Is there anyone satisfied with the current state of liturgical affairs in the Catholic Church? I doubt it. If you are reasonably happy with the liturgy in your own parish, you need only take a short trip—to another parish, another town, possibly another diocese—to experience something that you find appalling. So the process of reform should continue. But in what direction?
The success of liturgical reform, the Holy Father tells us, requires “time, faithful reception, practical obedience, wise implementation.” Surely by now, 50 years after the Council, we’ve had enough time. But faithful reception and practical obedience have been in short supply, at least in my experience.
Personally I am not a traditionalist. I love the Latin Mass, and attend it occasionally, but I do not seek it out. Ideally I would like to see the Ordinary Form enriched by adding some elements of the older ritual (and vice versa), as Pope Benedict and Cardinal Sarah have recommended. But for now I would be content to worship regularly in a parish where the liturgical norms of the Ordinary Form are followed faithfully, and Mass is celebrated with reverence. Yet in 50 years I have never lived in such a parish. In the healthiest parishes that I have found, some priests show a “practical obedience” to the liturgical norms; others improvise freely. So the norms really aren’t “norms” at all; they are something closer to aspirations.
(Pope Francis also says that the reformed liturgy must be the action of the people—that is should be “popular” rather than “clerical.” So can I safely assume that the Holy Father sympathizes with my plight? Would he agree that priests should not change the liturgy on their own initiative, to suit their own personal preferences?)
Pope Francis urges us to guard against “unfounded and superficial interpretations” of Vatican II teachings and “practices that disfigure” the Council’s vision. So our challenge today is to understand the Council’s teaching, in the light of a process that was already underway before Vatican II was convened.
In his address to Italy’s National Liturgical Week, Pope Francis reminded his audience that movement to reform the liturgy began with a commission created by St. Pius X, and continued with the encyclical Mediator Dei by Pope Pius XII. And that process is “irreversible,” he now definitively states. Those two Pontiffs blazed the trail, and we should still be following it. So if abuses have cropped up—liturgical novelties that “reverse” the direction set by Mediator Dei,” say, or practices that are demonstrably counter to the instructions of Sacrosanctum Concilium, they should be treated as aberrations and rooted out.
Pope Francis is notoriously unsympathetic to calls for the “reform of the reform.” But the logic of his August 24 speech points unavoidably in that direction. If we have not yet achieved the goals of the reform, and those goals were established more 100 years ago when the process began, we need to examine where, how, and why things have gone awry.
I think he means that he HOPES things will stay (as confused) as they are
but that is not how history works
just as he created change (increased confusion, whatever), each future pope will, if he wishes, exert an influence...
so that we can expect more changes (maybe good, or maybe bad, or maybe both)...after pope Francis
nothing any one person does is etched in stone forever, and certainly nothing pope Francis has done is worthy of such permanence (imho, of course)
hope springs eternal, we live for hope...stay tuned..
Lawler is trying to put the best spin possible on Francis’ latest menacing words. This was meant to shut down Cdl Sarah and Cdl Burke, and was NOT meant to plead for better celebration of the Novus Ordo, as Lawler implies.
Another case of weasels talking weaselly. And I'm referring to the Pope (alas), not Lawler.
O I see. O my! That makes it even worse. Thanks for the info tho.
Whether he's right about that or not is a question left to the reader.
JMHo
99% prolefeed. Like all his statements. No point analyzing.
Lawler says Pope Francis' latest statement is "confusing" and that he is "is notoriously unsympathetic to calls for the 'reform of the reform.'"
Does that really sound, to you, like a defense of Pope Francis?
Lawler is noting that, despite Pope Francis' "NewChurch/Sc***theTradition" orientation, he's constrained to be ambiguous because he knows he's out of step with his holy predecessors, and thus his huffy "magisterial" tone is a cover for internal incoherence.
Sad. We really do need a new pope..
We still have a pope.
His name is Benedict.
Something very strange and sinister happened in 2013 when Pope Benedict stepped away from the Chair of Peter. Will we ever know what they did to him?
i very much think a “new improved” pope could be a great blessing
Probably not in this lifetime.
Most likely answer is “some sort of blackmail”.
Well, that’s true; I read an article just the other day about Francis’ tactic of ambiguity, so his strategy is obviously being acknowledged by commentators who at one time would have covered for Francis by forcing an orthodox interpretation on his ambiguous words.
The position seems to meet the Ockham’s Razor test. However that test is not conclusive.
I think Benedict is too principled a man to have succumbed to blackmail. That’s why my mind goes to darker possibilities, like some form of brain manipulation.
I know that sounds crazy. But even 30+ years ago the Soviets were deep into drug experiments with political prisoners they deemed to be psychiatric cases (because you’d *have* to be crazy to be a dissenter in the Workers’ Paradise!) And they gave dissidents psychoactive drugs which “ adjusted their attitudes” and degraded their cognitive abilities.
Can’t remember off hand the name of the guy I was most concerned about at the time. Was it Vladimir Buharsky? —something like that.
My point is, anything that *has* been done, is possible to do.
And this *has* been done.
Please pray.
He had one or two addresses after announcing his resignation but before actually resigning that seemed far too cogent for him to be anything other than fully coherent.
My initial thought Wass that he was finding everything too much and figured if he kept at it he would be dead within three months.
Bergoglio hates the Latin Mass. He’s on the verge of saying it’s banned forever in the Church. He probably can’t speak Latin so he hates it.
The Lavender Mafia drove B16 from power. Homosexual bishops control the Vatican.
I think he hates all Masses.
This is the third year in a row he did not offer a public Mass on the Feast of Our Lady’s Assumption.
bump for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.