Playtime is over: Neocatechumenal Way Hits a Dead End
"With Benedict XVI, playtime is over" writes Sandro Magister in the latest from Chiesa. Magister's article brings to the attention of English speaking readers (it first appeared in Il Giornale) that our most holy lord, Benedict XVI, has smashed (that would be too gentle a word) the Neocatechumenal Way, in particular, their notoriously deviant liturgical practices. Iacobus had a fine post about these shady characters a little while back. But to refresh your memory, here are some of the things which Magister notes about the Neocatechumenal Way's liturgical practices:". . . Communion is taken while seated around a large square table, with a large loaf of bread that is divided among the participants and wine ... passes from hand to hand and is taken in large swallows . . ."
Sounds wholesome, doesn't it? I like to think of it as diversity in liturgical expression, one of the important ways in which we express our desire to be a conciliar church.
Turns out, Benedict doesn't care, and he made Cardinal Arinze deliver the kiss of death: as of now, the Neocatechumenal Way is to cease and desist from their deviant liturgies and to resume the celebration of Mass according to the approved rites of the Church.
You can read Arinze's letter at the bottom of Magister's piece. It doesn't sound like much, but that's because it's in the style of a post-conciliar romanitas: the rules of romanitas don't let you spike the ball in the opponent's end zone, even if that's what you feel like doing.
Thus far, Benedict has been a silent operator, but he's getting things down, slowly, slowly. Another Roman once used the expression: "Festina lente" (albeit in Greek). Maybe that's what we're seeing here. This is a definite sign that the current pontificate will be much less forgiving of liturgical theatrics, liturgy as community celebration, and all the other garbage that the world has seen since the Council. Stay tuned . . .
go to main page
by Iosephus @ 12/27/2005 03:28:00 PM
25 comments
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, ora pro nobis
St. Joseph, ora pro nobis
St. Ambrose of Milan, ora pro nobis
St. Dominic, ora pro nobis
St. Francis (and St. Clare), orate pro nobis
St. Catherine of Siena, ora pro nobis
St. Alphonsus Ligouri, ora pro nobis
St. John Chrysostom, ora pro nobis
25 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
You might want to refer here for our general position on these things. As we have all manner of readers here at this blog, we would prefer if you refrained from using "evil" in descriptions of the NOM, which is a usage that has led so many into deep trouble.
Vivaarchlefebvre, we all would prefer to see the old rite of the Mass restored, fully, everywhere, in all its glory, but in the meantime, we don't think that the Novus Ordo Missae is evil per se; the Eastern forms of the Eucharistic liturgy are not as suited, in all respects, to the worship of God as is the Mass of St. Pius V, but that doesn't mean that they are evil, even if relative to the gold standard, so to speak, they appear defective. A very well done new Mass is much like the Eastern liturgies: good but not all there. Unfortunately, only very rarely (and I mean very rarely) is there a publicly celebrated new Mass which comes as close as it can to resembling the old rite in terms of rubrics.
Thank you for your comments. We all know how much we owe to The Archbishop.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sandro Magister's reporting is more comprehensive on the liturgical elements and gives the document, but John Allen was first:
http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word122305.htm#five
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Viva, perhaps this post drew your attention because I sounded rather enthusiastic about Benedict's liturgical crackdown. I am enthusiastic about it, but in a relative sense: I know very well that, thus far, he has only restrained the wildly deviant, and has not done anything to fix a situation, with the Novus Ordo, that has been bad for quite some time.
I just happy to see that the reins have been pulled back a little bit.
I understand what you're saying about St. Thomas. I do think it's the case, though, that you would also have to accuse the Eastern rite of being evil, if the force of your argument really came down against the Novus Ordo.
I don't know what you think, but I think that we can say that the various Eastern rites are not quite the beautiful and proper worship which the Mass of St. Pius V is. They are fine, as far as it goes, but the old Latin rite captures even better the theology of the Church with regard to the Holy Sacrifice.
Yet the Church has always permitted a diversity of rites. They are not evil, they are quite good, in fact. What is defective in the situation about which we speak is that we have moved from something which was very good (the old rite) to something which is not so hot. And it appears even worse when we consider the richness we had before.
It's not all about the Mass, though. As any Society bishop would say, the real issue is the theology of various things (the Mass, ecumenism, ecclesiology) since the Council. The new Mass was the tool used by the modernists and Free Masons to shatter the human elements of the Church from within. Forget the new form of the Mass! think alone of what the loss of the Jesuit order to the modernists has done to the Church!
But the new Mass, by being a constant presence, exerts a more awful effect upon the laity. So we are especially worried about it.
Yet what can we do? If we break our unity with the Holy Father, we are in a precarious position as Catholics. I say nothing more. I do not judge the bishops of the Society; I do not judge those who would only go to Society chapels; for I agree with them in nearly all respects.
But as a convert, as a former Lutheran, I can't, I do not want to judge the Roman Pontiff. Many bad things were done and said under the reign of JPII, but he did not repudiate the Faith. Nor will Ratzinger. The Church is indefectible.
Why did this punishment come upon us? I do not know. But at least those of us on this forum have an appreciate for the Mass which we may not have had otherwise. We savor every bit and piece, every word of the Mass of St. Pius V. I hardly know if that justifies what has happened during the past forty years, but it's something of a consolation during this time.
And I think that good things are on the horizon for the old Mass. The Society continues to grow; the FSSP is growing; the Institute is growing. And that rate of growth will only increase as the many, many children which today's old rite Catholics have had begin to embark upon their own adult lives.
God's will be done, but it would be nice to live to see the Faith exerting again that influence which it did during the 1950s and early 1960s when Americans were coming into the Church in unprecedented numbers.
So Viva, no need here to argue about the old Mass and the new Mass. None of the contributors on this blog would ever frequent the new rite Mass if they thought it could be helped. And if there is a disagreement on that point, I respect your position, but it's not one which I conscience I can take.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Why were all the comments here removed??
I don't know why Vivaarchlefebvre deleted his, but once he did, mine didn't really add much! So I took it out. I left the one that was still on topic.
"Hey guys, while I am firmly in agreement that Pope Benedict's order (through Cardinal Arinze) is a great step in the right direction, I really don't think it helps to use terms like "these shady characters". The Neo-Cats I know are humble, enthusiastic, faith-filled people. And as such, I'm sure they will readily bow to the wishes of the Magisterium. (though it will be interesting to see how they do this while still retaining the understanding which led them to these deviations in the first place.)
Well, Venerable Aussie, if you dislike "shady characters", how about "those who ought to be immediately and forcefully repressed"?
Dear Iosephus,
How did you come to the conclusion that "the Eastern forms of the Eucharistic liturgy are not as suited, in all respects, to the worship of God [...], (and) they appear defective, [...] good but not all there"?
My take on that would be rather that the only thing the Eastern Divine Liturgies can be compared to on the West are the very Missae of Latin traditional rites (Roman '62 and other), not NO. Not at all.
Martinus, that's precisely what I was hoping to say. I do not at all think that the Novus Ordo is comparable to anything other than Cranmer's godly Order.
So when I spoke of the eastern liturgies, I was comparing them to the Missal of St. Pius V, that Hannibal Bugnini's craftsmanship.
I'm afraid it cannot be said that the Eastern Rites are inferior in any way, even to the Missal of Pius V:
These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.
From ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM
If you look at this article, a spokesman for the Neo-Cat Way says that this statement from Benedict was actually a pat on the back and the recognition of special privileges for the Neo-Cat Way people. The dissent train rolls on.
Ambrosius,
you are right on spot. Eastern rites are not inferior to TLM. Well, we can certainly set individual preferences here, although based solely on one's spirituality, views on "participation", esthetics or personality of the attendant. We can find as many shades of those as one wishes, all in line with tradition(s). (Note that I leave out NO from considerations here, the rite that I gradually came to dislike on more serious grounds, well understood in this forum).
By no means intending to irate staunch protagonists of Latin liturgical tradition, I have to confess for the sake of clarity, that I do not find TLM attractive (for lack of better word), as opposed to Byzantine Divine Liturgy. But that's all it is - a _preference_, not a judgement of dignity, sacramental efficiency, theological soundness, or mystagogy, nor just being the only right way of worship.
Again, why do the Eastern forms of the Eucharistic liturgy seem defective, relative to the gold standard of MPV?
If you would allow me to be controversial ;), I would say that Martinus' somewhat implied suggestion that beauty is subjective is misleading - and is an entirely modern aesthetic idea. One may have a proper preference for the Eastern Liturgies, as they are of his own tradition, but that does not make them objectively more beautiful.
Even that folksy Catholic Encyclopaedia admits as much in its article on the Roman Rite:
That it has advantages possessed by no other -- the most archaic antiquity, unequalled dignity, beauty, and the practical convenience of being comparatively short in its services -- will not be denied by any one who knows it and the other ancient liturgies.
This all reminds me of a discussion that Iosephus and I had upon a time, concerning those wonderfully pious souls who unfortunately find no beauty in traditional artistic or liturgical forms. Such people are obsessed by the guitar, or the drum, or the frenzied "praise and worship" hymn. Such a predilection is certainly not sinful, but it can be dangerous when one's tastes are contrary to the tastes of the Church.
Iacobus,
Much though I adore and cherish the Catholic Encyclopedia, I could find you in a heartbeat any number of Eastern Catholics who would instantly claim superior dignity and beauty for their rites. In my own experience, there is a shocking daily durability to the eastern divine liturgies -- they are far more grand in "daily" form than even the old Rite, which -- let us be honest -- does not fulfill its richness when celebrated as a low Mass, whereas the eastern liturgies entirely lack such a "low" form. I have not see a pontifical eastern liturgy, but I should like to do so! They are strange to this very western soul, still, after assisting at many of them -- but I would not be quite so eager to pass judgment upon them.
Ambrosius,
I have attended a DivLit of St. John Chrysostom with a bishop presiding (diaconal ordination interspersed) at Melkite church, but I can't say for sure it was a Hierarchical liturgy. However I watched such celebrations over the internet (look for example at goarch.org of the Greeks) and yes, they are longer, because they are stuffed with extra rites, such as frequent episcopal blessings with trikiria and dikiria (which take longer with accompanying chants), couple more prayers/chants, public vesting of the bishop in the center of the nave and greeting chants (equivalents of our Plurimos annos). But overall, stage-wise, so to speak, there is no much more splendor in it than in regular Sunday DivLit. Well, would it be possible?
Iacobus,
There is beauty and then there is beauty. Yes, I used the term in a subjective manner, as one which perception depends on individual's esthetics - as such it can be misleading or direct one's attention to secondary aspects. But the same subjective esthetics can draw us closer to particular celebration, and perhaps only then, when we get enough soaked in it, we (with the help of Grace) can perceive its eternal beauty.
Cath Con has the pictures.
More on the relations between the Holy See and the Neo Cat way.
Post a Comment
<< Home