I've tried to read it, honest I have, but it is written in Francis' turgid bishop-ese that spins out entire paragraphs without conveying any useful information. Just to make sure there is nothing to understand he throws in a "on the contrary" or, worse, "let us be clear, here."
Take paragraph 25: I have no idea what he is talking about, but the gist seems to be that the reforms to the liturgy didn't remove the sense of mystery but it is a good thing that it removed them.
Francis talks about beauty, but he doesn't manage to tell me why the polyester vestments he wears are more beautiful than the embroidered chasubles Pius XII wore. Honestly, I am open to education, enlighten my mind: what is this beauty of which you speak, Francis? I thought I knew, but it seems like I am finicky and rigid.
It is sad that I have reached a point where an apostolic letter by the pope makes me feel only a foreboding sense of "What now?" If the letter merely says that we should neither be hypocritically functional nor falsely mystical, I am relieved. I expected that it would tell me what time signature the offertory hymn must have.
I'd be interested in a (theological? canonical?) analysis of the way that Pope Francis loops the Novus Ordo mass in all its particulars into the larger category of the Second Vatican Council.
It seems like there's a lot going on in phrases like "accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium."
I'm not a theologian or liturgical expert, but it seems to me that one can distinguish between the following:
1) An outright rejection of one or more of the V2 documents
2) An outright rejection of the validity of the novus ordo mass
3) A belief that the post-V2 liturgical form was deficient in some way (aesthetically, didactically, theologically, perhaps even in its fidelity to Sacrosanctum Concilium), despite being well intentioned and in no way leading to sacramental invalidity
4) A preference for the traditional mass
5) A belief that the traditional mass still has any value at all
It seems to me that all those things are in danger of being conflated.
Until the Holy Father addresses the issue of the extent to which the Novus Ordo is in line with the actual text of Sacrosanctum Concilium as well as the intention of the council fathers I'm quit frankly not very interested in what he has to say. It's as plain as day that his liturgical vision is as different as can be from his immediate predecessor. Why, as a person trying to live as a faithful Catholic, would I take it at face value that Francis is right and that Benedict was wrong when Benedict painstakingly addressed the underlying historical and theological issues while Francis simply assumes those who disagree with him reject the council without even bothering to make an argument!
Sacrosanctum Concilium and the work of the Consilium were two different events from historical, theological and practical perspectives. The fact that the pope conflates them shows that he's not interested in authentic dialogue and reform.
Reading this in the context of his recent cardinal appointments; cannon law changes; bishop resignations in PR and Germany; and obviously traditionis custodes, it seems clear that he is trying to forcibly unite a fragmented global church. Pray that he succeeds!
i wish that the bishops are also pushed to stick closer to Sacrosanctum Concillium and not allowing things that are explicitly prohibited by SC, like 'lay' reflection. if the Pope seriously wants people to unite under Vatican II reform, then these liturgical violations should be be rid of too.
This helps me understand the Holy Father's approach a little better: we must "accept the liturgical reform" not just theoretically but practically, by actually participating in it. This makes sense, but I would venture to say that it would go down much easier if there were more recognition of how hard, practically, it has been for many people to participate in authentic liturgical reform.
I think we need to broaden our horizons on its reception. Like Redemptionis Sacrentum, bored indifference followed by a collective forgetting is very much a possibility.
Especially as he seems to think the Council set an impossible unrealistic goal for modern man. Of what use is SC, or this instruction then?
Likewise how "he cannot see how" when so many people do, with ease, what he cannot fathom. Why will Catholics in 10 years remember a document that admits it cannot understand or chart a path for the Church of its time?
It should be noted that Pope Francis emphasizes at several points the rubrics of the mass do in fact need to be followed and that the priest is not there to perform or be the center of attention. While many will no doubt bemoan the continued oppression of the TLM, they should focus on the Holy Father’s clear and repeated injunctions against many of the rampant abuses of the Novus Ordo.
We have been over how His Holiness doesn’t understand the American church. Today allowing Speaker Pelosi to receive communion in St Peters Basilica furthers that assertion.
If TC was confusing (and it is), then the “clarification” that claims to be nothing but points of reflection is all the more confusing. This is a bowl of nothing and will be yesterdays news in 12 hours.
Pope Francis' contradiction of the teaching of his immediate predecessor without any acknowledgement is striking.
PF: "we cannot go back to that ritual form which the Council fathers, cum Petro et sub Petro, felt the need to reform"
BXVI: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place." https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html
Thinking about this again today. Is there a pattern where the Holy Father says things intended to rein in people on the "left" of the Church, they ignore him and keep doing what they were doing, and then we never hear about it again from Rome? I hope this does not become part of that pattern.
Cum Petro? Sum Petro? As long as the vicar of Peter keeps within the faith once delivered as found in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. What interprets these? Faithful adherence and application of these sources of Revelation.
I really like the letter. I would have liked it even more had it come in a vacuum of other things the Holy father says and does that leave my head scratching.
There is one section, number 52, that I have seen conspicuously overseen, in which the Holy Father reminds of the importance and significance of silence in the Mass. At least where I live, it feels like we are afraid of liturgical silence. Priest: "Let us call to mind our..." (interrupted by the) Deacon: "Lord, you have come to heal the contrite". Or, "May the Lord accept the sacrifice ... for the good of all his hol" and the priest interrupts, "The Lord be with you". And then, when there's supposed to be silence, the organist plays "background" music.
I pray the priests and deacons in my Diocese read the document and start letting the faithful practice the very important liturgical silence the Holy Father speaks about here.
What does Pope Francis say in his new apostolic letter on the liturgy?
I've tried to read it, honest I have, but it is written in Francis' turgid bishop-ese that spins out entire paragraphs without conveying any useful information. Just to make sure there is nothing to understand he throws in a "on the contrary" or, worse, "let us be clear, here."
Take paragraph 25: I have no idea what he is talking about, but the gist seems to be that the reforms to the liturgy didn't remove the sense of mystery but it is a good thing that it removed them.
Francis talks about beauty, but he doesn't manage to tell me why the polyester vestments he wears are more beautiful than the embroidered chasubles Pius XII wore. Honestly, I am open to education, enlighten my mind: what is this beauty of which you speak, Francis? I thought I knew, but it seems like I am finicky and rigid.
It is sad that I have reached a point where an apostolic letter by the pope makes me feel only a foreboding sense of "What now?" If the letter merely says that we should neither be hypocritically functional nor falsely mystical, I am relieved. I expected that it would tell me what time signature the offertory hymn must have.
I'd be interested in a (theological? canonical?) analysis of the way that Pope Francis loops the Novus Ordo mass in all its particulars into the larger category of the Second Vatican Council.
It seems like there's a lot going on in phrases like "accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium."
I'm not a theologian or liturgical expert, but it seems to me that one can distinguish between the following:
1) An outright rejection of one or more of the V2 documents
2) An outright rejection of the validity of the novus ordo mass
3) A belief that the post-V2 liturgical form was deficient in some way (aesthetically, didactically, theologically, perhaps even in its fidelity to Sacrosanctum Concilium), despite being well intentioned and in no way leading to sacramental invalidity
4) A preference for the traditional mass
5) A belief that the traditional mass still has any value at all
It seems to me that all those things are in danger of being conflated.
Until the Holy Father addresses the issue of the extent to which the Novus Ordo is in line with the actual text of Sacrosanctum Concilium as well as the intention of the council fathers I'm quit frankly not very interested in what he has to say. It's as plain as day that his liturgical vision is as different as can be from his immediate predecessor. Why, as a person trying to live as a faithful Catholic, would I take it at face value that Francis is right and that Benedict was wrong when Benedict painstakingly addressed the underlying historical and theological issues while Francis simply assumes those who disagree with him reject the council without even bothering to make an argument!
Sacrosanctum Concilium and the work of the Consilium were two different events from historical, theological and practical perspectives. The fact that the pope conflates them shows that he's not interested in authentic dialogue and reform.
Reading this in the context of his recent cardinal appointments; cannon law changes; bishop resignations in PR and Germany; and obviously traditionis custodes, it seems clear that he is trying to forcibly unite a fragmented global church. Pray that he succeeds!
i wish that the bishops are also pushed to stick closer to Sacrosanctum Concillium and not allowing things that are explicitly prohibited by SC, like 'lay' reflection. if the Pope seriously wants people to unite under Vatican II reform, then these liturgical violations should be be rid of too.
This helps me understand the Holy Father's approach a little better: we must "accept the liturgical reform" not just theoretically but practically, by actually participating in it. This makes sense, but I would venture to say that it would go down much easier if there were more recognition of how hard, practically, it has been for many people to participate in authentic liturgical reform.
I think we need to broaden our horizons on its reception. Like Redemptionis Sacrentum, bored indifference followed by a collective forgetting is very much a possibility.
Especially as he seems to think the Council set an impossible unrealistic goal for modern man. Of what use is SC, or this instruction then?
Likewise how "he cannot see how" when so many people do, with ease, what he cannot fathom. Why will Catholics in 10 years remember a document that admits it cannot understand or chart a path for the Church of its time?
It should be noted that Pope Francis emphasizes at several points the rubrics of the mass do in fact need to be followed and that the priest is not there to perform or be the center of attention. While many will no doubt bemoan the continued oppression of the TLM, they should focus on the Holy Father’s clear and repeated injunctions against many of the rampant abuses of the Novus Ordo.
We have been over how His Holiness doesn’t understand the American church. Today allowing Speaker Pelosi to receive communion in St Peters Basilica furthers that assertion.
If TC was confusing (and it is), then the “clarification” that claims to be nothing but points of reflection is all the more confusing. This is a bowl of nothing and will be yesterdays news in 12 hours.
Never fear!
Pope Francis' contradiction of the teaching of his immediate predecessor without any acknowledgement is striking.
PF: "we cannot go back to that ritual form which the Council fathers, cum Petro et sub Petro, felt the need to reform"
BXVI: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place." https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html
based pope
Thinking about this again today. Is there a pattern where the Holy Father says things intended to rein in people on the "left" of the Church, they ignore him and keep doing what they were doing, and then we never hear about it again from Rome? I hope this does not become part of that pattern.
Way too little, way too late, and way too banal
Cum Petro? Sum Petro? As long as the vicar of Peter keeps within the faith once delivered as found in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. What interprets these? Faithful adherence and application of these sources of Revelation.
I really like the letter. I would have liked it even more had it come in a vacuum of other things the Holy father says and does that leave my head scratching.
There is one section, number 52, that I have seen conspicuously overseen, in which the Holy Father reminds of the importance and significance of silence in the Mass. At least where I live, it feels like we are afraid of liturgical silence. Priest: "Let us call to mind our..." (interrupted by the) Deacon: "Lord, you have come to heal the contrite". Or, "May the Lord accept the sacrifice ... for the good of all his hol" and the priest interrupts, "The Lord be with you". And then, when there's supposed to be silence, the organist plays "background" music.
I pray the priests and deacons in my Diocese read the document and start letting the faithful practice the very important liturgical silence the Holy Father speaks about here.