Pope Francis gave an important address on the liturgical reform on Thursday, speaking to participants of the 68th Italian National Liturgical Week.
The liturgical reform, he said, did not “flourish suddenly,” but was the result of a long preparation. It was brought to maturity by the Second Vatican Council with the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, “whose lines of general reform respond to real needs and to the concrete hope of a renewal; it desired a living liturgy for a Church completely vivified by the mysteries celebrated.”
The direction marked out by the Council, the Pope continued, found expression in the revised liturgical books promulgated by Blessed Paul VI. But “it is not enough to reform the liturgical books; the mentality of the people must be reformed as well.” The reformation of the liturgical books was the first step in a process, he said, “that requires time, faithful reception, practical obedience, wise implementation” on the part first of the ordained ministers, but also of the other ministers, and indeed, of all who take part in the liturgy.
Today, Pope Francis said, “there is still work to do in this direction, in particular rediscovering the reasons for the decisions made with the liturgical reform, overcoming unfounded and superficial readings, partial receptions, and practices that disfigure it.” He said that this is not a question “of rethinking the reform by reviewing its choices, but of knowing better the underlying reasons [for it]… [and] of internalizing its inspirational principles and of observing the discipline that governs it.”
The Supreme Pontiff insisted, “After this magisterial, and after this long journey, we can assert with certainty and magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”
Full story at News.Va.
Pope Francis speaks very clearly in this address. It appears the Roman Catholic Church is not going to “reform the reform” and completely dismantle the liturgical reforms implemented after Vatican II. Additionally, it does not appear that the traditional Latin Mass will be reinstated as the Ordinary Form of the Mass. May God continue to bless the Holy Father!
Reforming mentality? Shades of The Manchurian Candidate.
Francis says, “The reformation of the liturgical books was the first step in a process, he said, “that requires time, faithful reception, practical obedience, wise implementation” on the part first of the ordained ministers, but also of the other ministers, and indeed, of all who take part in the liturgy.”
Ordained ministers? I thought we had ordained priests. Other ministers? What religion is he talking about, anyway?
And, he says the mentality of the people must be reformed. From what to what?
It’s enough to make you want to tear your hair out!
Deacons are ordained ministers who are not priests.
True but very sad. 2000 years of liturgy thrown out the window by priests of weak Faith. How is the Church doing since our self destructive Vatican Council II? Badly. We must protect the bit we have left of the Traditional Mass for these bad bishops will try to squelch it.
You have a poor knowledge of history there have been many changes to the Mass since the Last Supper
But they were done slowly, David, not like what was done after Vatican II that caused culture shock for many people. It did not affect me that much at first, but I certainly have sympathy for those it did. Some things were changed too fast, and others things should not have been changed at all.
Having opinions about what should have or shouldn’t have been changed in the Mass, are just opinions. The last word comes from way above anyone’s voice on the internet. Maybe instead of twisting our hands nervously we should do a better job with celebrating the Mass in whatever rite we chose.
Contradicting Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict.
Fortunately, the damage being done by Pope Francis is reversible. Mark my words, the Francis pontificate will be regarded as a blemish on the Church’s history, and no future pope will ever take the name Francis again because it will be held in such strong disrepute and no future pope will want to associate himself with it.
I say a very pragmatic, astute, practical, and indeed wise words from the Holy Father here. Over the vociferous nonsense of those who decry the Ordinary Form, Francis calls on Catholics to the task of “rediscovering the reasons for the decisions made with the liturgical reform, overcoming unfounded and superficial readings, partial receptions, and practices that disfigure it.” Brilliant! You folks who have swallowed whole the KoolAid from the beloved SSPX by believing that something sinister was afoot in the Council for promulgating the Mass of Paul VI have—ONCE AGAIN—been called out by the Vicar of Our Lord. Listen to the living Magisterium. Stop the dissent!
Vatican II did not promulgate the Mass that was issued by Paul VI. If that were true, we would still be worshipping in Latin.
This is wrong. Seitz’ point is contradicted by article 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium itself–a document of Vatican II. This article gave the bishops the power to authorize the use of the vernacular at Mass; and the majority of the bishops have authorized the widespread use of people’s mother tongue.
My point was correct: Vatican II didn’t promulgate the revised Mass. Rather, it provided guidelines for a future revision. It was Pope Paul VI who actually promulgated the revised rubrics.
Regarding the use of Latin, I’ll admit to a slight overstatement. Paragraph 36 states, “The use of the Latin language . . . IS TO BE PRESERVED in the Latin Rites. But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, MAY frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use MAY be made of it.”
Please note that the Council stated that Latin is the norm. The vernacular may be used if it’s deemed advantages to the people.
The Roman Missal of our Vatican II Mass– is always published in Latin, in Rome! Next, we have all the translations of the Roman Missal, into vernacular languages. That is the way the Vatican does things. Of course– the Roman Missal of 1962, the last Roman Missal prior to the Council– contains the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Latin Mass.
I agree. You are correct
Scapegoating the SSPX won’t change history, jon. And there is no going back. Damage has been done. Thankfully, moving forward means that healing is possible with God’s grace. And even as Francis declares one thing, it is apparent by his declaration that future popes can declare something else.
The Magisterium is “living” as you point out and thus Francis cannot rein beyond his given time as pope.
The Pope’s words are insane. To begin, as shown through the perfidy of VII “implementing liturgists,” any form of the Mass can be changed. Hundreds of years were simply gone due to the hubris of Paul VI and friends. Well, not gone perhaps, but repressed.
Now there is a vibrant Tradition returning regarding the liturgy. Of course, Francis will not abide this, as no totalitarian leader can abide contradiction in his core ruling principles and values. SSPX? Who knows what will happen with their reintroduction. The Pope is whistling past the graveyard as the institutional Church, save through Tradition (some exceptions), continues to shrink and die. Christ will save the Church that honors Him.
In canonical parishes with which I’ve been associated, there have always been Eucharistic Ministers, Lector Ministers, etc. I believe these ministers all fully understand they have a prescribed function. The clergy and hierarchy have priestly functions.
I have often said the Latin Mass should be readily available to those who prefer it. However, I believe it would a serious mistake to make Latin the only choice. I believe some, if not many, would leave if Latin became the only choice.
“I believe some, if not many, would leave if Latin became the only choice.”
If we had Latin only, with either form, I think at least 90% of Catholics would leave the Church, maybe 99 .9 %.
Perhaps I will mention that the all-Latin Mass groups of priests, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, (and even the not-yet-in-communion-with-Rome, SSPX!) are growing
at an unprecedented rate, and their churches are filled with many, many young Catholic families, who love the old Latin Tridentine Mass! These parishes also offer good Catholic schools for their children! Many of their young grow up to be traditional, all-Latin Mass priests and nuns— and the all-Latin Mass seminaries are bursting with an abundance of priestly vocations!!
It’s an interesting subject, but I’d agree with Ann that it would only be many who would leave and absolutely no more than 50%. Catholics don’t have quite the same mentality as Protestants. Also, I’ve noticed subtle signs that the Church over the past 10 years has been becoming stronger. Lastly, if a pastor properly prepared his congregation for the change and slowly implemented it, I think the transformation would be relatively successful.
It is important to note that Pope Francis did not in any way contradict the teachings of St Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom participated in the Second Vatican Council. Also, Pope Francis continues to support the EF and the OF of the Mass, while giving encouragement to a deeper understanding of the reasons and background for the OF of the Mass.
I have not posted for awhile, but here you have it from the horses mouth the TLM is never going to return under this this man as we all but knew that. So yes enjoy hand holding, kiss of peace, altar girls, dancing girls, communion in the hand while standing, clowns, giant puppets, women lectors and the list goes on enjoy your Novus Ordo!!!
Yes go about ignoring the latin liturgy while you pray your rosary and mind you grocery list (Abuse happens in both rites)
Appears from this article that Francis is setting the stage to abolish the TLM. It has been reported that he wouldn’t allow it in his diocese in South America. Should anyone be surprised with his liberal antics? How long will it be before the SSPX gets wind of what is happening and back out to their original position? It is easy to see from the above commentators there are those who welcome the abolishment of the TLM. Well this I can logically say, once the TLM and the 7 Holy Sacraments in Latin are gone, Holy Mother the Church is gone,and it is the end of time. Christ said He would be with Holy Mother the Church until the end of time!
Please note that Pope Francis has said nothing about the abolishment or discontinuance of the Tridentine Mass. However, please observe that there are many posters on this website who have called for the complete abolition of the Mass of Paul VI. These individuals and groups must not be faithful Catholics because even Pope Benedict XVI advocated in Summorum Pontificum the celebration of two different forms of the Holy Mass: the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form. One Form of the Mass is not superior to another.
An enduring rule of revolutionaries is that once they have destroyed tradition, they turn about and try to institutionalize and render permanent their own revolution.
But it cannot be so: because revolutions inherently foment disregard of all law, truth, and tradition.
That is why we see what is happening in this country. That is what happened in Revolutionary France and necessitated the rise of Napoleon.
It is too late to try to institutionalize the revolution of Vatican II. The whole system inherently must fall apart.
I would agree that revolutionaries, especially totalitarian revolutionaries, seek to institutionalize their own revolution. But I would disagree that they all “inherently foment disregard of all law, truth, and tradition.” As a counter example, I cite the American Revolution.
Vatican II also didn’t seek a revolution. That is old-style liberal propaganda. Rather, Vatican II implemented a minor set of corrections to Trent. In this regard, Vatican II made the Church more adaptable so as to help bring Christ to a changing world.
If we look at the arc of history, one could make the case that the Church is about to enter a multi-century period of extreme persecution. The Council has given the Church more tools and adaptability to survive underground, deal with these assaults, and to counter-evangelize.
Trent was for the Church in an unstable Christian world.
Vatican II is for the Church in a hostile world.
It was none other than Vatican II lion, Cardinal Leo Josef Suenens, who, in a famous interview at the time of the Council, approvingly stated, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Catholic Church.” Not the unique American Revolution, that by exception proves the rule—the despotic French Revolution.
Rebellion of this kind against law, truth and tradition, once launched, cannot obtain stasis again, and the continually revolving wheel of constantly changing liturgy, ‘doctrines’, and new moral imperatives—accompanied by the mass exodus of Catholics—proves that.
I can’t say what Cardinal Suenens intent was for using the word “revolution.” But Pope Benedict XVI, as a priest, was one of the more influential theologians at the Council, and I doubt that he would characterize the Council in this way regardless of his opinion on any specific document. I also doubt that John Paul II, who was a supporter of the Council, would characterize the Council in this way either.
Lastly, If Cardinal Suenens actually felt that the Council would be the equivalent of the French Revolution, this attitude didn’t transcend to the documents. I’ve found the documents to be quite orthodox. And, of note, Cardinal Suenens was only 1 of 2000 bishops in attendance.
Regarding your accusations of a constantly changing liturgy, doctrine, and morals, the Council doesn’t speak to this. But it would have surely have condemned anything contrary to false teaching. Can you cite some Church teachings since the Council to justify your claim?
Regarding the mass exodus of Catholics, there was a revolution. But this cultural revolution started outside the Church circa 1967 and quickly spread to her. The impact of this revolution can’t be underestimated and has caused much harm. I submit that if we didn’t have the Council, the Church would be much worse off than it is today.
Note– Pope Benedict XVI, when a young priest, serving during the years of the Council– says that he became rather liberal for awhile — but later changed his mind, when he saw the alarming destructions in the post-Conciliar Church– and returned to solid Catholicism!
Pope Benedict, when he was a Cardinal, stated that “Gaudium et Spes” completed what was started in 1789, with the French Revolution. The French Revolutionaries believed in “progressivism,” obliterating the monarchy, obliterating all religion, and setting up a new world that liberated mankind of all “tyranny” of God, religion, and monarchy. They believed they ushered in a new “Age of Enlightenment” for mankind, with their battle cries of “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” Vatican II likewise ushered in a new, “enlightened age,” with similar “humanistic” beliefs and battle cries!!
Very interesting post, regarding Cardinal Suenens’ ideas– many European clergy and laymen, had these same thoughts! As Europeans, they were much closer to what occurred, during the French Revolution!! Many Cardinals at the Council, had thoughts and ideas, as well as presentations ready– which never made their way into the final Documents, too! And of course– all the Cardinals were under strict obedience, to do as the Vatican said, at the Council– like it or not! That’s the way it goes! Over 200,000 clergy resigned, after the Council, and many religious orders– especially the nuns! — totally collapsed! And millions now have left the Catholic Church!
To my knowledge, Pope Benedict was not a liberal during this time period and was certainly not a revolutionary.
Anonymous and I are arguing the root cause of the problems in the Catholic Church. He infers that if you change the Council, you solve the problem. My view is that the Council causes no harm and that something other than it needs to be changed to solve the problem.
The answer is important because it dramatically changes the solution. Implementing the wrong solution can have catastrophic consequences.
Steve Seitz — you need to read further!! YES, Pope Benedict himself, says he was, for awhile, an enthusiastic liberal, during the years of the Council! But when he saw the destructions to the Church– he completely changed his mind!! Set aside the word “revolutionary,” for a moment– and just think of the goals of the Age of Enlightenment, ushered in by the French Revolution– and note the cause of “liberty, equality, and fraternity,” with humanism as the basis of life– not the “tyranny” of religion (or a monarch)– you will easily see these themes re-echoed, at Vatican II!! Europeans, with a different history– do not think as we do!!
For starters– try reading pp.381-382, of Ratzinger’s “Principles of Catholic Theology” (Ignatius Press).
A great many people welcomed the ideals of the French Revolution (but NOT the bloodiness of the revolutionaries!!)– ideals of the Age of Enlightenment, have long been popular, such as humanism, the glory of man, and the concepts of “liberty, equality, and fraternity,” and the dawn of a New World Order– no more tyranny of religion or monarchy!! Vatican II did embrace some of these ideals, mixed with Catholicism! Many others, however– found these ideals to be in direct conflict with our religion, and contradicting the “Syllabus of Errors” of Pope St. Pius X.
Steve Seitz– if you read any biography of Pope Benedict, it will explain the details as to why he was a liberal young priest at Vatican II, and then changed back to the true Faith of our Church, in the late 1960s– about the year 1968, when all of the violent, radical leftist-liberals were tearing up the world, and tearing up the Catholic Church.
When objective facts are presented, the role of the Vatican II proponent is to deny they exist.
When Card. Suenens, who was not just “one of 2000 bishops”, but 1) cardinal primate of Belgium, 2) former rector of the Louvain (so he would presumably know the meaning of calling V2 “the French Revolution in the Church “), and 3) one of only 4 Moderators in charge of the Council—chosen personally by Paul VI—he is telling us this revolution is a consummate rejection of prior tradition in the Church. Suenens even thought V2 was “a New Pentecost” in the Church (he titled a book so).
But one cannot accept these objective facts, but must do a fan dance of dissimulation (“we dont know ‘Suenens’ intent’). Doesnt it disturb…
You accuse me of not accepting the facts regarding Cardinal Suenens. The truth is that it doesn’t matter.
The teachings of an Ecumenical Council are always based on what was approved by the Pope: not of any political intrigue of its members. If you’re correct, much Catholic doctrine would need to be re-evaluated. But if you still think that the Council is destroying the Church, maybe you can answer some helpful questions.
— Can you please cite the sections of the conciliar documents that have caused all the wreckage?
— Do you deny that there was a cultural revolution that occurred outside the Church starting circa 1967?
— Lastly, I’m curious, what is wrong about having a renewed Pentecost in the Church?
“The truth is that the facts don’t matter.”
That says it all.
I think we are done here
My discounting of your comments about Cardinal Suenens wasn’t intended to be rude. Your information about him is relevant from an historical perspective but IS NOT relevant from a conciliar authority perspective. The reason is that it doesn’t matter “how the sausage was made” but, rather, that the final text was agreed upon by the council and that it was approved by the Pope.
To understand more about Ecumenical Councils and how our understanding of this magisterial authority developed, I recommend reading a good book on Church history. If you don’t trust Church histories after the 60s, I recommend Fr. Newman Eberhardt’s work “A Summary of Catholic History,” Volume 1, published 1961.
OBTW. For those who love the TLM, do not despair, it and the 7 Holy Sacraments will survive until the end of time! Man cannot stop God or break God’s promises. The Roman Catholic Parishes practicing the traditional latin rites will survive until the end of time. You can count on our Lady and these Traditional Parishes representing the true Roman Catholic Church as your refuge and your strength. Smile, relax, and may God bless you and your families.
Bruce, any Catholic can attend the Tridentine Latin Mass at any time, offered by all-Latin Mass groups of priests, approved by Rome– such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, etc. etc.Many young Catholic families have joined their parishes, and raised their children as Traditional Catholics, with good traditional Catholic parish schools, too, many staffed with traditional nuns! Many young boys from these families, have entered their seminaries, too, and are now serving as priests! There is today, a HUGE number of these vocations!
Some of the “alarmist” comments about this article are over reactions based on other fake news reports. The EF form of the Mass will most certainly continue.
The S.S.P.X. need to wait and not be TRICKED by this Argentine Marxist to pull them into the mess that is Rome today, Francis, Obama, Clinton, Ryan, Romney, Pelosi, Bush, Schumer, Merkel, Trudeau, Sanders, ALL Marxist-Leninists of the New World Order.
“To try the faith and trust of these just ones, there will be times when all will seem lost and paralyzed. It will then be the happy beginning of the complete restoration…. ” (Our Lady of Good Success)
If the Mass was deemed needing updating by the Council of Pope John23rd, then it was because the modernism promulgated by the media , in all its forms, had slowly but surely seeped into the minds and souls of Joe and Jean Pewsitter. Movies, television, newspapers, etc. we’re prime agents in shaping immorality, and public opinion, by gradually leading people into sin, and then into apostacy, and heresy.We have all been affected, whether we realize it or not. Consider St. Francis of As sissi words, “Fasting cleanses the body, clears the intellect, and purifies the soul.” If you want to find out if his statement is verifiable, try his formula..I, for one, highly recommend it.