Pope Francis has said that he does not agree with "The Reform of the Reform". Some of my correspondents find this odd ... after all, those who engineered the imposition of the Novus Ordo back in the 1960s did not seem terribly devoted to a principle of Liturgical Immutability. But the Holy Father's words do raise the question: are we supposed to say Good Bye to the whole Ratzinger policy whereby the OF and EF would converge so that, in a generation or three, they would together constitute just one Form?
My own view is we should not abandon the idea of Enriching each Form from the other one. And I think Ecclesia Dei should take the lead, in this coming Fatima Year.
The EF ought to be brought up to date, not least as far as concerns its Calendar; and Benedict XVI explicitly envisaged this. (In the old days, Rome did this frequently by adding things to aliquibus locis, from which they sometimes subsequently slipped across into the Calendare Universale.) Sadly, the treatment which Traditionalists experienced for decades, during the period before Benedict XVI made it clear that the Old Mass never had lawfully been abrogated, has made them ... us ... fearful of any tinkerings. But in fact a Calendar which has not been added to in fifty years is itself something unknown in Tradition. So ... a consensual way of putting this process into effect, delicately, sensitively, gently, would be to start with May 13. Would anybody, especially any devoted client of our blessed Lady, violently object to May 13 being made the EF festival of our Lady of Fatima, with an appropriate Mass and Office being authorised? This would necessitate the removal of S Robert Bellarmine (possibly to his OF date of September 17).
Surely, it is within the competence of Ecclesia Dei to do this? Having perhaps sought the opinion and good will first of SSPX, FSSP, the Ordinariates, ICKSP, and other major interests?
17 December 2016
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I understood, perhaps mistakenly, from Cardinal Sarah in his London address, that one of the things he had discussed with the Holy Father was just this rupture in the EF Calendar, and the need both to introduce the feasts of saints canonised post 1970, and to harmonise the two calendars of the Roman Rite. He suggested this is numbered within the current activities of the Culto Divino.
From what I've seen of vetus ordo Portuguese missals, there was no Mass unique to the "Feast of Our Lady of Fatima". I can't recall, unfortunately, which was the Mass used.
The calendar should certainly be reformed (perhaps to include feasts such as that of Our Lady of Fatima), however, the reform should also sort out the problems of some other feasts (an example being that of St Joesph the Worker, on which Fr Hunwicke has commented). As to including saints canonised after 1970 in the traditional calendar, I would be opposed to this, as many of the 'saints' who have been canonised perhaps should not have been. Of course Padre Pio and the English Martyrs are not whom I am speaking about, but, as I understand it, canonisations are not infallible as they do not relate to faith or morals, and Mother Teresa (despite her many virtues) wrote some disturbing and religiously indifferent statements in her books. John Paul II also did many strange things, such as being anointed with cow dung by a pagan priestess and kissing the Koran. Even if he is a saint, I don't believe he would be a good example to be held up for people to follow because of this. The process has been changed and now we have this ridiculous farce of rushing through canonisations and canonising many people at the same time. Perhaps a reform of the traditional calendar should be held off from until this crisis in which we are living subsides?
Having done further research, I realise that the infallibility if canonisations is not so simple as I have put it, and that the majority of (doctrinally orthodox) theologians would disagree with what I said. However, there is an element of prudence on the part of the pontiff when he canonises a person.
Color me puzzled. It's not clear to me in what way a reform of the tradtional calendar would constitute an enrichment brought about by some sort of cross-fertilization with the NO. It would simply be a continuation of the tradition. I cannot think of any other legitimate reforms that would not entail similar conceptual difficulties.
A modest proposal. Could we agree to this reform of the reform of the reform--could we simply drop the OF/EF distinction and adopt a more accurate terminology? Say, TRL/NO? In light of the FACT that the Traditional Roman Liturgy never WAS, and COULD not have been abrogated (B16 makes both points), reference to that liturgy as "extraordinary" appears to me to be ... extraordinarily misleading.
'I prefer to say nothing, or little, about the new calendar, the handiwork of a trio of maniacs who suppressed, with no good reason, Septuagesima and the Octave of Pentecost, and who scattered three quarters of the Saints higgledy-piggledy, all based on notions of their own devising!' (Bouyer, Memoirs).
Do we really want anything to do with this particular 'reform'? And some of the earlier ones were not too felicitous either.
"Pope Francis has said that he does not agree with "The Reform of the Reform". "
What does Pope Francis agree with ? Especially with regard to Tradition and Dogma and the Liturgy and the education of priests over the millennia ?
I'm a convert from being raised Lutheran. While my parents were/are horrified with my transition to the church of mindless obedience, a wonderful gift was learning that the pastor (from a lineage of several generations of Lutheran pastors) who confirmed me had converted to Roman Catholicism.
I was raised with the altar at the very front of the church underneath a large crucifix and communion given on one's knees at an altar rail. Tradition and Respect.
But, something was missing. The notion that the miracles of Jesus were real, Tradition, clear and logical teachings, and devotions and liturgy that connected me to the very beginning; a center with a known, discrete, and God centered origin. These are important !
Pope Francis seems to not just disagree with the very fundamentals of what makes Catholicism the one true ever faithful Church from the very beginning but also to have no understanding of the culture of the church; consequently, his verbiage flows like rabid rapids, changing with the social mores of the times.
Pope Francis and his Jesuit education and his meager science education alerts me that he has no competence in either a classical or a technical - and as such is quite unfit to undertand not just "what might be", but what is worthy to aim for and is in fact achievable.
I cannot understand the raison d'etre of the education of a priesthood which is ignorant of the fundamentals of the origin of English and other languages and cultures, much less those languages that were part and parcel of the early Church. When reading Bible translations in English it is impossible (I have an acquaintance who claims he can "do" theology from English translations and his conclusions are bizarre) to understand the tradition and cultures that produced the theology of the times. I cannot fathom a priesthood that does not understand the pre-Christian philosophers and the Doctors of the Church in both their own right and in the context of history.
Lest Pope Francis and his friends accuse me of pushing an arrogant liberal arts curriculum, let me note that I have an undergraduate degree from MIT and was a veterinarian - a substantial dose of science and engineering. MIT required courses that brought one into contact with the intellectuals of pre-Christian and post-Jesus thinkers and philosophers .
I am also old enough to have been educated in a system where "foreign" languages were stressed as much as science and music. So I learned Latin - and am ever so grateful that I did, for this knowledge has aided me enormously in every aspect of my adult life.
Objecting to St John Paul the Great,perhaps the most important Pope since Pius IX,shows how single-issue minds cannot grasp the breadth of the Faith.Get out of your small trench,man! Noli timere!
I do not quite understand why Fr. Hunwicke having started his post with the mentioning the reform of reform (RoR) went on updating the EF. I always thought that RoR means 'traditionalising' the OF. Some trads have always been sceptical about this, thinking that OF has such innate defects that make any meaningful RoR impossible. Even if one does not share such opinion, it is a fact that most 'users' of OF do not care about RoR and the Holy Father has called the idea "error". Updating the of the OF is an altogether different enterprise. It is the competence of Abp. Pozzo rather than Card. Sarah.
Josephus above wrote of two things "to introduce the feasts of saints canonised post 1970, and (!) to harmonise the two calendars of the Roman Rite". While the first thing sounds harmless (OL of Fatima, Padre Pio, Lwanga, Miki, etc.), the second causes legitimate paranoia (Christ the King comes to mind). Perhaps "harmonisation" is not such a good idea as long as the EF is de facto treated as a harmful and barely tolerable handout to "nostalgics". And if PCED or CDW would seek, as Benedict XVI once suggested, an opinion of the interested institutions (FSSP, ICR, FIUV) the latter should insist on some 'horse trade', e. g. Padre Pio for restoring Sts. Philip and James to May 1, or/and new prefaces for restoring the Holy Week, etc, etc.
You're not required to believe any particular story about a given saint (except those in the Bible), but that the person named by the Church is enjoying the Beatific Vision. You're definitely not required to venerate a specific saint, or even like them.
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations...
From Ratzinger's commentary on Ad tuendam fidem.
Post a Comment