My post on the Old Rite Mass in Argentina was in response to several comments I read in various places stating that there is no provision for the usus antiquior in Argentina. I did not intend to make any criticism of the Rorate Caeli blog (which did not make that assertion) and I apologise if that impression was given. I am also happy to link to NC's post How Summorum Pontificum was blocked and trampled on in Buenos Aires: facts, not fantasy and disinformation.
So although Cardinal Bergoglio did initially arrange for a Mass according to the norms of Summorum Pontificum, it was such that the readings were from the modern lectionary in the vernacular - so far in accord with a possible first reading of SP (though Universae Ecclesiae n.26 made clear that the readings should be from the 1962 lectionary) - but also with lay readers which is not provided for in SP. Attendance at the Mass dwindled and it was discontinued.
Just to be clear also, the Masses which are on the google map that I linked to are all outside the diocese of Buenos Aires which is just the area in white on this map.
I write this post in the interest of accuracy. As is probably fairly obvious, I am trying to post as many positive things about Pope Francis as I can. However that is a useless exercise if the truth is not adhered to carefully. The purpose of this post is not to fan the flames of criticism of our new Holy Father but to be as accurate as possible. Let us pray the God will guard and guide the Holy Father in all his responsibilities, including his governance of the Sacred Liturgy.
40 comments:
If it's white smoke, it means the cylinder head gasket has blown!
Should that last comment read "once sacred liturgy"?
Father:
If we can assume that the account of the TLM as it was celebrated in Buenos Aires is true, it does not mean that the man who is now Pope Francis was in any way cooperating in the abuse of the terms of Summorum Pontificum. Anything from priests poorly trained in the Old Rite for having to learn it in their spare time, to naivete regarding certain latitudes (which lectionary and so on), all have created confusion, some in spite of good intentions, some the result of bad intentions.
The fact remains that a certain corner of the Catholic blogosphere -- and we all know which one -- was attacking Pope Francis within a couple of hours after his election. That the commenters are worse than the contributors only proves that the latter are enabling the former. Charity and truth demand that they be called out.
Thank you Father.
I am glad you have clarified this point. Yes, we most be as positive as we can, whilst still conveying the facts accurately.
S.P. allows using Lections from the wrong Lectionary? I know that S.P. allows for, at Low Mass, Lections to be prayed only in the vernacular, but only with the TLM Propers, I thought, not those of the N.O.?
Thank you for your humble post, Father.
I have deleted one comment which was borderline - please do distinguish between a blog and the comments.
Matthew - Universae Ecclesiae clarified that the readings are to be taken from the 1962 missal, not the modern lectionary. There was some possibility of misunderstanding before this clarification.
As a matter of accuracy, it is with pointing out that the use of the 1970 Lectionary is NOT permitted at celebrations of the EF. This was not clear to everyone when the Motu Proprio was published, but it has been made very clear indeed in Universae Ecclesiae since then. See articles 24 and 26.
Thanks Father. Really appreciating the positive info on our new Holy Father.
Let's face it, this election was yet another bail-out for the 'too big to fail' Council.
Father, like you all I want is the truth and clarity. This is not a witch hunt, but an attempt for many of us to have hope for the future after suffering for years and years of abuse in Masses.
I sincerely hope for a growth of the love for the TLM by this Pope. I lived in Malta for a total of several months and have friends there who suffer from the suppression of the TLM-liturgical wasteland
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/photogallery/2005/index_20050420.html
Pope Benedict's first Mass after his election in 2005. Note the two candles off to the left of the altar, the arbitrary bouquet of flowers, and the absence of an altar cross.
Things have come a long way. Be thankful.
God bless you, Father; you're a man of integrity.
Father, please pray for all of us laity. There is great name calling for those of us who just want facts and the truth. I do not want to not support our new Father, but I do not want to encourage lies or pretense, either. I cannot believe the names traddies who are worried are being called on even some trad blogs. It is so painful.
Those of us who have lived in liberal dioceses most of our lives and put up with horrible liturgical abuses, with bishops who have suppressed the TLM cannot face any backward movements. It is too hard.
Some people are referring to the TLM as if it were just an aesthetic choice or some preference, rather than a completely different spirituality.
The Mass today in the Sistine Chapel was very different from a Mass by Benedict. Also, why do people, and even today someone said this to me, upset with simple, true statements which are logical and not meant to condemn but enlighten? Why is any criticism seen as hatred when it is not and in fact, quite the opposite? Those of us who love Christ and His Church feel pained by all of this division, not happiness.
What trads don't seem to realise is that many of us have suffered at their hands for years. It's pathetic that trads often play the poor victim, whereas in actual fact they are so often hideous vessels of monstrous bile. Interesting trads can say the most intemperate things of others, but if anyone say anything against them it's unacceptable.
I have made one or two intemperate remarks about trads on a certain blog recently, partly as a way of venting my anger at an often hypocritical bunch of unpleasant people. I have repented of doing so, but some of the tawdry and infantile stuff about pope francis on certain traddy blogs (Not this one) has made me wonder if I repented too soon.
The church doesn't exist to serve 'trads', trads should be there to serve the church.
Joseph Shaw - just realised that the text of the post itself was inaccurate on the point that you raised. Rather than leave my later clarification in the combox, I have amended the post itself.
Okay, then if it was a good thing for Benedict to improve all of that, why were so many things back to JPII style today? It took 22 hours for the changes. There is no reason to push a liturgical re-start button unless there is a leftward agenda -- that is the reason for concern.
I can't figure out what side I am on on this question.
I think we should all be looking at the positive and beautiful things about the new pope.
But I think there are also worries and concerns that are not absurd and should be examined with care. And worried and concerned people should not be attacked.
I WISH I saw strong orthodox Catholics from Buenos Aires (traditional or not) saying, No guys, you got it all wrong! Our Cardinal is wonderful!
Haven't seen that yet.
I think, Father, that you have retracted far too rapidly. (Have you had legal threats made against you?) Having read all that Rorate have put up, I have yet to see any evidence that this was, as they allege, a carefully-engineered attempt to "block and trample" Summorum Pontificum. Rorate Cæli appear to be devotees of the conspiracy theory of why things go wrong, whereas on the evidence available good old-fashioned cock-up – good intentions incompetently planned, or inadequately resourced, or both – seems at least as likely.
And I entirely agree with some other commenters on this thread about the appalling attitude of some so-called Catholics over the past 24 hours or so towards our new Holy Father. Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius.
I agree with Kenneth J. Wolfe. This is worrying. It seems very possible that Pope Benedict’s ‘reform of the reform’ and Fr Z’s ‘brick by brick’ ‘Marshall Plan' for the Church’ are to be swept aside. Are we to be accused of bile and nastiness if we are concerned? I would really appreciate a post by Father Finnegan on Our Lord’s guarantees to the papacy and the Church and on the proper attitude of Catholics towards the Holy Father.
It seems to me that:
1. We are not obliged by Catholic Faith to believe that he was the choice of the Holy Ghost, though we pray and hope that this is so. His election may have been the result of the positive will of God, or merely His permissive will.
2. We are not obliged to believe that everything he does, says, or commands is automatically guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be for the best.
3. We are certainly not obliged to agree with him about his mistaken views on the Falkland Islands.
4. We are not obliged to believe that he is a holy man (despite his title ‘Holy Father’). If we go around asserting that he is holy, we risk serious egg on our faces if he turns out to be an Alexander VI. We cannot know what only God can know. It doesn’t matter for our Catholic Faith even if he is a worldy and ambitious man (which I don’t happen to believe). God can put any of his creatures to good use.
5. We must not feel that we must defend every action or word of a pope for fear of being branded protestant. People who do so may have the best of intentions and may be exemplary Christians (unlike me), but I don’t think they help in the long run.
On the other hand, we ARE obliged to give the pope the benefit of the doubt, to give him our love, show him respect and obedience, and to pray for him. He is only human and he needs our prayers. If, God forbid, he teaches heterodoxy (not ‘ex cathedra’, of course), we may have reservations, but may not sit in judgement on him; only a future pope can do that.
The Catholic way, it seems to me, is nuanced. Too many ‘conservatives’ seem to get swept along in a kind of papolatry in an understandable reaction to the chaos and disorder found everywhere in the Church today. I think there are real dangers in this, but I would love to hear a proper exposition of these issues from you, Father.
Pope Francis and the Ordinariates.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/03/the-first-pope-from-latin-america-bergoglio.html
Hmm.
I was alerted to this post. Thanks for this information. We in Malta are apprehensive because, as already pointed out in earlier comments, we have suffered - and continue to suffer - a lot. As an organisation, Pro Tridentina (Malta) tried to show both sides of this debate. We will link this article to provide a better view of the situation.
JMJ
@supertradmum
You are so right when you say steps 'backwards' are hard to deal with, especially when it feels like a goodly portion of life has been spent toiling for small gains.
And I'm glad you pointed out that not all criticism is symbolic of hatred. Pope Benedict spoke in his Lenten message (last year I think) about the importance of fraternal correction in charity. We are all grown up enough to be able to distinguish between a valuble critique and fire and brimstone condemnation.
We can often be disappointed with our family members, but it doesn't mean we don't love them.
Thanks!
"There's little indication that he has a great interest in the liturgy. Surprising as that might seem, I'm quite happy with that. This isn't the moment for the Pope to be getting stuck into liturgical minutiae."
This comment, from Joseph Shaw's LMS blog, does not suggest to me any sort of sympathy with the Henny Pennys who were out in force late Wednesday.
I'm not a member of the LMS, but am so disgusted at the point scoring against it here that I am now applying to join.
I visited Buenos Aires for two month long visits more than ten years ago. It seemed to me at the time that it was a deeply divided country, almost frighteningly so and that the Church was equally deeply divided and somewhat moribund into the bargain. Whatever Pope Francis did or did not do later on, as Archbishop and Cardinal, I think one can only judge it with a detailed knowledge of the context and I doubt if any of us have that knowledge. I do not think we can speculate upon what he will do as Pope based upon his record in Argentina as the circumstances are entirely different.
Supertradmum - In what way was yesterday's Sistine Chapel Mass 'very different' from a Mass by Benedict? (apart from the fact that Francis didn't chant anything, which could be due to a number of reasons).
I get the very strong sense that Pope Francis is "John Paul III". That is by no means a bad thing -- he seems to be 100% Humanae Vitae compliant and his comments on same sex marriage will mean that the media and the new atheist and LGBT militants will soon be after him bigtime.
But liturgically Pope Francis's sense of continuity goes goes back no further than 1969 and in this respect he resembles his illustrious Polish predecessor. I would be surprised if Msgr Marini is still his MC in 6 months' time. I also expect Pope Francis to start using the papal staff of Paul VI and Blessed John Paul -- it suits his no-frills 1970s liturgical preferences.
I think most of the anger in the traditionalist blogosphere about the new Pope is displaced emotion arising from the sudden departure of Benedict. If Pope Francis takes the traditional "nuptial" view of the duration of his pontifical responsibilities -- till death -- that may actually be a change for the better, despite the liturgical impoverishment.
Francis - no I have not had legal threats. My retraction is purely out of concern for the truth.
Brick by Brick.
It seems the "reform of the reform" continues.
Kenneth J Wolfe said...
"Okay, then if it was a good thing for Benedict to improve all of that, why were so many things back to JPII style today? It took 22 hours for the changes."
Nothing wrong with saying the Mass versus populum. It is allowed by the Church. (Yes, yes, I do realise the reasons for pro- ad orientem.)
No doubt Pope Francis has being saying the Mass this way for the better part of 40 years.
"There is no reason to push a liturgical re-start button unless there is a leftward agenda -- that is the reason for concern."
Know the mind of the Pope now do we?
Lamentably Sane said...
"3. We are certainly not obliged to agree with him about his mistaken views on the Falkland Islands." [LOL]
"4. We are not obliged to believe that he is a holy man (despite his title ‘Holy Father’). If we go around asserting that he is holy, we risk serious egg on our faces if he turns out to be an Alexander VI." [Blimey]
Fr Simon Henry made a very interesting comment on his Offerimus Tibi blog in one of his recent threads about Pope Francis that...
"We might recall that some of the great English Martyrs gave their lives for the Faith and in defense of the Papacy at a time when not all its incumbents would have set the media alight with praise! (Sts Thomas More & John Fisher lived through the reign of Pope Alexander VI!)"
One wonders if the "family" were proud of St Francis Borgia, as Fr Finigan pointed out he was Alexander VI's grandson.
I see you've been tidying up your comments Father.
I did agree with Epsilon. And I don't think she was insane either.
And she was right in a way.
Joseph Shaw's name is down as a contributor at Rorate Caeli.
Hello Father,
PAX CHRISTI!
I just have three points to make, with your permission..
First is that I would like to bring to your attention some points that Fr. Byers made on his his blog at Holy Souls Hermitage regarding how we should treat the Vicar of Christ.
Considering that no one actually has first hand information on what transpired during that supposed mass that was incorrectly offered, and also since the details of the implementation of SP in BA are also unclear, it would be uncharitable for us to impugn the reputation of the Holy Father, using our desire to know the truth and report facts as the basis for this act.
Second, although I can empathize with traditionalists and with the concerns that they have brought up (since I also consider myself a traditionalist and I prefer the TLM), I believe that what I have seen at RC and also at other blogs is the result of the fear and confusion that the father of lies is trying to spread across the faithful. And unfortunately, the reactions I see also betray a lack of faith in God and in Christ's promises.
And last, but not the least, we should not forget the promises that Our Blessed Mother gave to St. Dominic regarding those predestinate souls who recite the Rosary faithfully, and also the message that St. Louis de Montfort gave to us regarding those who serve the Blessed Virgin Mary. We have seen that the Holy Father is truly devoted to Our Blessed Mother and that it has also been mentioned that he recites the Rosary daily and faithfully.
I hope and pray that we all heed Christ's warning: Watch and Pray!
Ora pro nobis, Sancta Dei Genitrix. Ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi.
Damask Rose - epsilon asked me to remove her comment.
Damask Rose - I asked Father to remove it because priests should not have to be taking the flack for what other bloggers are saying. I shouldn't have reacted so strongly - maybe I shouldn't have reacted at all - and now apologise.
May God forgive us all on this holy day of St Patrick! May we pray that our pope is/will be a good pope, and that we will try to be good Catholics in word and deed, in worship and belief, never losing faith in God no matter what seems to be going on either inside or outside the Church.
Fr Finigan
Thank you for your reply. It did occur to me that Epsilon had asked you to do that...
But I do agree with David L Alexander's second paragraph above.
I do not think I will be putting any more comments on Rorate Caeli's blog. (I'm sure they won't care either way.)
In the past, they haven't put up my comments when I've disagreed with their posts.
Fr. Finigan, Id like to thank you for your concern
for serving the truth. It should go without saying
that the Church will never have anything to fear
from the truth, for after all Truth Himself is Her
Bridegroom. I think that the abuse scandals of the
past decade have shown how ill-served She is by
spin and omission and whitewash-- even if done
with the intent to 'protect' the Church.
Your post was made with all due charity, and I
respect you for that. I hope that the owners of
some of the sites currently mid-orgy in their Pope-
bashing take notice of your dedication to truth
presented in charity. You are showing them how
catholic blogging should be done.
David L. Alexander writes above: "The fact remains that a certain corner of the Catholic blogosphere—and we all know which one—was attacking Pope Francis within a couple of hours after his election." That is true. And at the time, I thought that they were being obnoxious and counterproductive. I still think that their tone is obnoxious and counterproductive. Unfortunately, however, every day brings us more painful inducements toward the conclusion that in substance, the critics called it exactly right. We must not emulate the tone, and they must moderate it if they hope to get anything done, but the first week of this pontificate has rung some heavy-duty alarm bells and while every single one of them might yet be a false alarm, and while charity to Francis qua our brother and obedience to him qua our pope demand a more respectful tone than one sees in the combox of, say, Rorate, the early indicators have given us every reason for us to be watching developments with deep, deep concern.
Post a Comment