It is September 15, the day after DAY ONE of Pope's Benedict's Summorum Pontificum on the extraordinary form of the liturgy. I am going to post this interesting article from Italy, translated by the Ratizinger Forum here, that tells us what really is at issue here for those that oppose the wider use of the extraordinary form. In my next post coming up I shall provide a round up of links and post about yesterdays historic day
Some of the Italian newspapers today (9/14) persisted in playing up the vocal opponents of the Motu Proprio in their stories. In Libero, Antonio Socci counterpunches.
Bishops against the trad-mass are really targetting the Pope
By Antonio Socci
It was 1971, and theologian Joseph Ratzinger - a man of Vatican-II - denounced the huge 'progressivist' disaster of the post-Council period, stating clearly the responsibility of so many bishops:
"On the bases of such progressivist representations, it seems that even among bishops, there seems to be an 'imperative to be topical' with an 'inexorable tendency' to deride dogma and even to indicate that n one can be certain about the existence of God. Therefore, I am sure that the Church is facing very difficult times, and that its real crisis is just beginning."
Indeed, the crisis was set ablaze above all by the assault on liturgy which is the heart of the Church. In 1997, as the cardinal responsible for the defense of the faith, Ratzinger would write: "I am convinced that the church crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in large part on the collapse of liturgy."
Today, as Pope, he has given the Church a historic day, when his Motu Proprio restores to the faithful the freedom to participate in the Church's traditional liturgy. Which is not mainly about the use of Latin as many dissidents want to make it appear, forgetting that even Paul VI's 1970 Mass is Latin in its 'typical' form. Nor does this matter interest only so-called traditionalists.
It is about so much more. The dark night of the progressivist, modernist inside job of trying to demolish the Church as it has been for two millenia is coming to an end. A great theologian like Hans Urs von Balthasar - whom Papa Wojtyla had meant to name cardinal for his contribution to Vatican-II - wrote: "Strangely, because of this false interpretation [of Vatican-II], one has the feeling that the post-conciliar liturgy has become more clerical that in the days when the priest was simply a servant of the mystery that he had the privilege to celebrate."
Starting today, Christians will finally regain the freedom to pray (and to believe) in the way their forebears and the saints prayed (and believed) all these centuries. This freedom was taken away from them capriciously and despotically by progressivist bishops and priests who initially presented the liturgical reform of 1969 as an abolition of the traditional rights of the Church and later sabotaged the indults granted by John Paul II in 1984 and 1988.
Now Benedict XVI - aware of how that boycott by some bishops had foiled John Paul's intentions - has told the bishops to recognize the rights of the faithful. This is a great step that will bring surprising fruits to the Church. But once again, a number of bishops are intending to disobey the Pope with open rebellion or with dialectical tricks. And setting the tone, as usual, was Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini who - in the robes of anti-Pope - made known that he would never celebrate the traditional rite again because of "the sense of being closed in that emanated from the kind of Christian living as it was then practised."
Thus, empowered by his brand pf progressivist ministry (and episcopate), Martini brushed away centuries of sainthood - the Church in which the greatest saints flourished, from Francis and Catherine, from Charles Borromeo and Francis Xavier, to Therese of Lisieux, from Maximilian Kolbe to padre Pio, emanated mustiness compared to the progressivists' idea of a church, made up of - and in the very image - of Catho-communists, freewheeling ecumenists, and liberation theologians. And the great Catholic liturgy, for whom geniuses like Michelangelo, Caravaggio and Mozart had created masterpieces, gives out the sense of entombment compared to what? - the post-Conciliar liturgical license and its most indecent abuses?
Hard on the heels of Martini comes his successor in Milan, Cardinal Tettamanzi, who has been emboldened to boycott the Pope and his Motu Proprio. As earlier, a few other Italian bishops, had explicitly expressed opposition to the Motu Proprio, like the bishop of Pisa [from whom I am still waiting to hear an explanation why the cathedral of Pisa charges admission as though it were a museum]. To get an idea of what the 'progresssivist Church' is, one must read an article published the other day in La Repubblica. It spoke of the funeral of the gypsy children who died in a fire in Livorno. Tne rites were celebrated by an Orthodox prelate in the Catholic Cathedral of Livorno.
Mons. Razzauto, the diocesan administrator with episcopal functions, who allowed the ecumenical event, said: "If, for special reasons, or for lack of any other pace, I would not have any problem in putting the Cathedral at the disposition even of Muslims." You read right. The Catholic cathedral available for Islamic rights. I will leave the comments - theological and canonical - to teh Vatican.
But I would like to underscore that this prelate who is so ecumenical and willing to open his Church doors for Muslim use, has for decades denied his fellow Catholics the right to celebrate the traditional Mass. In another Tuscan city (Siena), a bishop refused to allow a cardinal to say Mass in his Cathedral because the Mass was to be the traditional Mass.
In this open rebellion by bishops (the newspapers speak of two other Italian bishops), there is an opposition to the Pope that goes back a long way. At Vatican II, Fr. Giuseppe Dossetti - who went from Italian politics to agitating for reforms int he Church - tried to prove that the bishop has inherent power of jurisdiction over ordination itself, beyond the power conferred on him by the Pope. If this idea were ever accepted by the Catholic Church, then it would become the Episcopal church where the leader of the Church is nothing more than a coordinator.
Of course, Dossetti's idea was turned down, and Paul VI removed Dossetti. [I must admit I have no idea what exactly the Pope did to Dossetti]. But the progressivists never did give up their feeling of entitlement. In his last years, Paul VI became a voice crying in the desert. The then patriarch of Venice, Albino Luciani, was one of the few bishops in Itly who tried to oppose the progressivist trend: "It is time to declare courageously that to be one with the Pope is not a degenerate inferirority complex but a fruit of the Holy Spirit."
Then, with Wojtyla, the Pontificate regained its vigor. But I remember the excellent Don Divo Barsotti who told me in a 1985 interview: "The peril is great that the only Church of Christ will fall apart. I think that the Pope's travels express this tragic preoccupation. The Papacy was so humiliated and isolated in the past several years. No one wanted to listen to the Pope, least of all the bishops..." Rightly, Barsotti underscored that the bishop has the right to be followed by the faithful but only if the bishop is in communion with the Pope. Otherwise, eh is setting up his own 'church'. Loyalty requires that a bishop who disagrees with the Pope should resign.
But the dissident bishops won't even think of giving up their episcopal powers. Unfortunately, any 'progressivist' who is named a bishop will simply carry on the trend. They would have the clerical bureaucracy in their power. But why do these dissident bishops fear freedom? Why do they wish to prevent the faithful from praying as they have for centuries? Because in the church, lex orandi is lex credendi. Traditional liturgy expresses orthodox Catholic doctrine, the true faith that fascinates and attracts. Whereas their season has come and gone, a season, as Cardinal Ratzinger had decried, when Christians could be born here and there by whatever doctrinal wind.
In that memorable speech before the Conclave of 2005, Ratzinger had exclaimed: "How many winds of doctrine have we known in these last decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking...The small boat of thought of many Christians has been shaken by these waves, tossed from one extreme to the other." Benedict XVI is seeking to anchor that boat to orthodox tradition. Even if the 'clerical party' has declared war on him, he has the Christian people on his side.
Libero, 14 settembre 2007
Some of the Italian newspapers today (9/14) persisted in playing up the vocal opponents of the Motu Proprio in their stories. In Libero, Antonio Socci counterpunches.
Bishops against the trad-mass are really targetting the Pope
By Antonio Socci
It was 1971, and theologian Joseph Ratzinger - a man of Vatican-II - denounced the huge 'progressivist' disaster of the post-Council period, stating clearly the responsibility of so many bishops:
"On the bases of such progressivist representations, it seems that even among bishops, there seems to be an 'imperative to be topical' with an 'inexorable tendency' to deride dogma and even to indicate that n one can be certain about the existence of God. Therefore, I am sure that the Church is facing very difficult times, and that its real crisis is just beginning."
Indeed, the crisis was set ablaze above all by the assault on liturgy which is the heart of the Church. In 1997, as the cardinal responsible for the defense of the faith, Ratzinger would write: "I am convinced that the church crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in large part on the collapse of liturgy."
Today, as Pope, he has given the Church a historic day, when his Motu Proprio restores to the faithful the freedom to participate in the Church's traditional liturgy. Which is not mainly about the use of Latin as many dissidents want to make it appear, forgetting that even Paul VI's 1970 Mass is Latin in its 'typical' form. Nor does this matter interest only so-called traditionalists.
It is about so much more. The dark night of the progressivist, modernist inside job of trying to demolish the Church as it has been for two millenia is coming to an end. A great theologian like Hans Urs von Balthasar - whom Papa Wojtyla had meant to name cardinal for his contribution to Vatican-II - wrote: "Strangely, because of this false interpretation [of Vatican-II], one has the feeling that the post-conciliar liturgy has become more clerical that in the days when the priest was simply a servant of the mystery that he had the privilege to celebrate."
Starting today, Christians will finally regain the freedom to pray (and to believe) in the way their forebears and the saints prayed (and believed) all these centuries. This freedom was taken away from them capriciously and despotically by progressivist bishops and priests who initially presented the liturgical reform of 1969 as an abolition of the traditional rights of the Church and later sabotaged the indults granted by John Paul II in 1984 and 1988.
Now Benedict XVI - aware of how that boycott by some bishops had foiled John Paul's intentions - has told the bishops to recognize the rights of the faithful. This is a great step that will bring surprising fruits to the Church. But once again, a number of bishops are intending to disobey the Pope with open rebellion or with dialectical tricks. And setting the tone, as usual, was Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini who - in the robes of anti-Pope - made known that he would never celebrate the traditional rite again because of "the sense of being closed in that emanated from the kind of Christian living as it was then practised."
Thus, empowered by his brand pf progressivist ministry (and episcopate), Martini brushed away centuries of sainthood - the Church in which the greatest saints flourished, from Francis and Catherine, from Charles Borromeo and Francis Xavier, to Therese of Lisieux, from Maximilian Kolbe to padre Pio, emanated mustiness compared to the progressivists' idea of a church, made up of - and in the very image - of Catho-communists, freewheeling ecumenists, and liberation theologians. And the great Catholic liturgy, for whom geniuses like Michelangelo, Caravaggio and Mozart had created masterpieces, gives out the sense of entombment compared to what? - the post-Conciliar liturgical license and its most indecent abuses?
Hard on the heels of Martini comes his successor in Milan, Cardinal Tettamanzi, who has been emboldened to boycott the Pope and his Motu Proprio. As earlier, a few other Italian bishops, had explicitly expressed opposition to the Motu Proprio, like the bishop of Pisa [from whom I am still waiting to hear an explanation why the cathedral of Pisa charges admission as though it were a museum]. To get an idea of what the 'progresssivist Church' is, one must read an article published the other day in La Repubblica. It spoke of the funeral of the gypsy children who died in a fire in Livorno. Tne rites were celebrated by an Orthodox prelate in the Catholic Cathedral of Livorno.
Mons. Razzauto, the diocesan administrator with episcopal functions, who allowed the ecumenical event, said: "If, for special reasons, or for lack of any other pace, I would not have any problem in putting the Cathedral at the disposition even of Muslims." You read right. The Catholic cathedral available for Islamic rights. I will leave the comments - theological and canonical - to teh Vatican.
But I would like to underscore that this prelate who is so ecumenical and willing to open his Church doors for Muslim use, has for decades denied his fellow Catholics the right to celebrate the traditional Mass. In another Tuscan city (Siena), a bishop refused to allow a cardinal to say Mass in his Cathedral because the Mass was to be the traditional Mass.
In this open rebellion by bishops (the newspapers speak of two other Italian bishops), there is an opposition to the Pope that goes back a long way. At Vatican II, Fr. Giuseppe Dossetti - who went from Italian politics to agitating for reforms int he Church - tried to prove that the bishop has inherent power of jurisdiction over ordination itself, beyond the power conferred on him by the Pope. If this idea were ever accepted by the Catholic Church, then it would become the Episcopal church where the leader of the Church is nothing more than a coordinator.
Of course, Dossetti's idea was turned down, and Paul VI removed Dossetti. [I must admit I have no idea what exactly the Pope did to Dossetti]. But the progressivists never did give up their feeling of entitlement. In his last years, Paul VI became a voice crying in the desert. The then patriarch of Venice, Albino Luciani, was one of the few bishops in Itly who tried to oppose the progressivist trend: "It is time to declare courageously that to be one with the Pope is not a degenerate inferirority complex but a fruit of the Holy Spirit."
Then, with Wojtyla, the Pontificate regained its vigor. But I remember the excellent Don Divo Barsotti who told me in a 1985 interview: "The peril is great that the only Church of Christ will fall apart. I think that the Pope's travels express this tragic preoccupation. The Papacy was so humiliated and isolated in the past several years. No one wanted to listen to the Pope, least of all the bishops..." Rightly, Barsotti underscored that the bishop has the right to be followed by the faithful but only if the bishop is in communion with the Pope. Otherwise, eh is setting up his own 'church'. Loyalty requires that a bishop who disagrees with the Pope should resign.
But the dissident bishops won't even think of giving up their episcopal powers. Unfortunately, any 'progressivist' who is named a bishop will simply carry on the trend. They would have the clerical bureaucracy in their power. But why do these dissident bishops fear freedom? Why do they wish to prevent the faithful from praying as they have for centuries? Because in the church, lex orandi is lex credendi. Traditional liturgy expresses orthodox Catholic doctrine, the true faith that fascinates and attracts. Whereas their season has come and gone, a season, as Cardinal Ratzinger had decried, when Christians could be born here and there by whatever doctrinal wind.
In that memorable speech before the Conclave of 2005, Ratzinger had exclaimed: "How many winds of doctrine have we known in these last decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking...The small boat of thought of many Christians has been shaken by these waves, tossed from one extreme to the other." Benedict XVI is seeking to anchor that boat to orthodox tradition. Even if the 'clerical party' has declared war on him, he has the Christian people on his side.
Libero, 14 settembre 2007
He has more than the people on his side, he has the authority of his great predecessor St Peter.If the bishops don't accept his authority then they are not Roman Catholics.
ReplyDelete