|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 4, 2012 20:24:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 1, 2012 20:44:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 23, 2012 21:21:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 28, 2013 19:01:45 GMT
Some posts by trad bloggers arguing that the seeds of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes, good and bad, were originally planted by Pius XII and that the image of him as unchanging traditionalist is a distortion. Note that I am posting this for discussion and do not necessarily agree with it: marymagdalen.blogspot.ie/2013/11/pius-xii-reformer.htmlliturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-council-and-liturgy-alternative.htmlEXTRACT The fontal point is this: The process of change was already firmly in place. I do not think that the Council, in fact, made any real difference whatsoever. My train of thought was started by reading some words which Annibale Bugnini wrote in the Preface to his 1956 Commentary on the new Holy Week liturgy. I give my own translation of his Latin: "When the Easter Vigil had been restored, a certain keen liturgist did not hesitate to assert: Pope Pius XII, in the history of Liturgy through the ages, will be 'The Restorer of the Easter Vigil'. Now, indeed, by the help of God's grace he is to be called 'The Restorer of Holy Week'; while in the secret of our hearts we do not doubt that still greater things await this indefatigable Labourer, and it is very likely (nec veritatis specie caret) that He will be 'The Restorer of the entire Sacred Liturgy'". Remember, also, the extremely radical nature of the 'restored' Holy Week. I venture to say that it is, if anything, more radical than the post-Conciliar changes to the Ordo Missae itself. 1951 and 1955 were simply two stages of which 1969 was the logically coherent third stage. The changes to Holy Week were only less radical than the later changes in that they affected merely one week of the year ... and services which were not of obligation ... and services which, in fact, for the most part, comparatively few people attended. Now let me bring in Cardinal Ratzinger's famous words of 1999: "After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. ... In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the Liturgy. It is not manufactured by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity"*. I think these are admirable sentiments. My only qualification would be is this: Pius XII had initiated the process of radical alteration, using the same people who were to be prominent after the Council, such as Annibale Bugnini, before and without the mandate of an ecumenical Council. We had come a long way since that admirable and erudite Pontiff Benedict XIV concluded that the disposition of the Psalter in the Roman Breviary could not be changed because there was no evidence that the Roman Church had ever used a different one. I suggest the Twentieth Century liturgical changes would most appropriately be called the Pian-Pauline Reforms. They are changes based on exactly that notion of papal power which Benedict XVI so acutely criticises: that the Pope can do anything. The process of liturgical 'reform' has, from the beginning, been the product of the maximalising Papacy of Pius XII. The 'Council' has only been an episode in that process. I never ceased to be amazed by this central paradox of mid-twentieth century Catholic history: that the 'Progressives' and 'Liberals'were able to transform the Latin Church pretty well overnight by manipulating an absolutist model of Papal power. I think it will be very interesting to see, over the medium term, how Pope Francis understands his Ministry. It can be easy for a good man with admirable motives and who is facing real problems to use the power which his position gives him to take short cuts. It takes a very learned and a very truly humble Pontiff - such as a Benedict XIV or a Benedict XVI - to understand, and to internalise his perception of, what he ought not to do (and I'm not only talking about Liturgy). Pope Francis's two recent utterances which bear upon the Hermeneutic of Continuity make me cautiously optimistic. If this man can consolidate the gains made by our beloved Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time prudently develop the teaching of the Magisterium about the Preferential Option for the Poor, he could turn out to be a great Pontiff. END liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/organic-development-1.html(This post - above -discusses how Pius mandated the replacement of the Vulgate Psalter with a new Latin translation based on the assumption that Classical Latin was the preferred standard and Church Latin, however hallowed by usage, was inferior)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah on Nov 29, 2013 15:27:41 GMT
This is my final post, I hear sighs of relief! OK, quote from Jesus :"Do not cast your pearls in front of swine" end quote. I leave you with two pearls, but wait a bit. You guys are on about canonizing this pontifex maximus who signed a concordat with Hitler. I think that you are not playing with the full deck. You are on about "high profile" converts? For the life of me I can not help but laugh. "Saint this and saint that"? You use many mediators in your vain efforts to get God`s ear. That pro Hitler pope should have been shot on sight, yet it is your hope that he will one day be a "saint" are ye well? Quote from Jesus : "No one comes to the Father, except through me" and to put all things catholic in proper perspective: "There is ONE God, and ONE Mediator between God and man, himself a man,Christ Jesus" end quote. You are without doubt, the saddest bunch of human beings that I have come across.Continue to look to the enigmatic Hibernicus to prop up an anti Scriptural, pagan regime, bye, bye, see you in hell
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 29, 2013 19:25:50 GMT
"See you in Hell" is a rather unfortunate form of leavetaking, which you might have rephrased if you had more sensitivity to language and its ambiguities. I hope and pray that we may see each other in Heaven.
|
|