Today: a couple of dogs that failed to bark in the night.
(1) Dog A is the CDW, still nominally under the direction of the disgraced not-sufficiently-bergoglian Cardinal Sarah. There is no evidence in the Working Paper which we are considering that the CDW was consulted. Yet the Working Paper is exclusively about a liturgical matter! Here we have another example of bergoglian method: the dodge of not entrusting something to an actually relevant dicastery. There would, you see, be the terrible risk that they might not come up with the right answer. After all, the Holy Father told Sarah to change the rules concerning the Maundy Thursday pedilavium and Sarah did nothing until, a year later, Bergoglio kicked him. Sarah then did as he was told but made it public that he was acting under duress. Just so, Amoris laetitia was presented to the Press by the Graf von Schoenborn and not by the (then) Cardinal Prefect of the CDF. Far, far safer! Gerhard is so, so off message!
(2) Dog B is the Divine Office. True, the Working Paper we are currently considering is, according to its explicit heading, concerned with Concelebration. But the closely connected question of the common recitation of the Divine Office cannot be irrelevant here. The Institutio Generalis de Liturgia Horarum makes clear (paragraphs 9 and 20) the great desirability of the common recitation of the Offoce. And it draws upon the same advice of Sacrosanctum Concilium which the Working Paper on Concelebration mentions. Why does the Congregatio pro clericis not allude to this?
I think the reasons for this deafening silence are practical and obvious. Any attempt to force student clergy in Roman Colleges to celebrate (ex. gr.) Lauds, Vespers, and the Office of Readings and Compline in common would probably lead to a general insurrection. The Offices in the Liturgy of the Hours are short and the daily pensum could probably be got through by an individual, moving his lips silently, in less than a total of twenty minutes. The Office need cause very little interruption to the working life of a priest or student. But if one had to stop what one was doing, go to chapel, and sing the texts, they would take up very much more time. I'm not denying that this might be a good thing ... I haven't forgotten the view of S Benedict that the the opus Dei should take priority over everything ... I'm simply saying that the students, being only human, might not all embrace it with equal enthusiasm ... I mean, they would cut up rough.
So ... the drafters of the Working Paper decided to let that potentially irritable Sleeping Dog lie. After all, Who Cares? Our priority, they mused, is to put a stop to this pernicious practice of all these disgraceful young priests getting out of bed early and slipping off before breakfast to access an altar on which to celebrate that Extraordinary Form which the current pope so dislikes; which encapsulates an entire attitude to Priesthood and to life which he fears and loaths.
To be continued.
20 July 2017
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The attitude of the incumbent Bishop of Rome and all those who share his allergy to the ancient Rite is just one more example of the soul-disease that has virtually the entire West in its grip: an ashamed and suicidal hatred of the past of one's own people, in service of a globalist utopian vision of "Progress". Turning the Holy Thursday pedilavium into an egalitarian stunt and promoting a tsunami of Third Worlders (including armies of young Muslims males) to flood Old Europe...these are all aspects of the same terminal illness.
And what about Mediator Dei, which explicitly addresses this question of private masses?
It is very hard not to rage every time I hear the name Francis.
But then, we are supposed to pray for our enemies, and thus I pray instead.
And someday, I will and I hope all others as well, heed the Scriptural admonition NOT to gloat over the demise of our enemies.
I pray for him all the time, in the words of Scripture, in fact.
I would be most surprised if most if not all of the Roman colleges did not meet for common recitation of Lauds and Vespers. I speak without first hand knowledge, however.
As far as the Office goes, I suspect that despite any and all flaws of the older breviary, many priests prefer it in private to a sung LH celebration.
A quick response to Adrian. I am afraid you would indeed be extremely surprised.
And to Mr. Roth: Very few priests use the old breviary. Even good ones. Most priests, of they even do recite the breviary, which is not as usual as it should be - prefer the newer version.
I would imply, that saying that the vast majority recite neither the older, nor the newer version would be much closer to reality.
Psalm 108:8 "Let his days be few and his bishopric let another take"
Jon Kabel: Salutations!!!
Post a Comment