Credo in Unum Deum

I Believe in One God

What is the Pope saying? *UPDATED*

**UPDATE**  Rorate has an update on the Popes remarks.  Much better… but still……

 

Well, over at the New Liturgical Movement there is a post (“An Act of Tolerance”) on the Pope’s comments about the TLM and the MP to the French people via the media in a short press conference.

I am a little confused by his comments.  Cardinal Hoyos seems to be making, for the Pope, much more liberalizing comments than the Pope is making himself.  I can see now the uncooperative bishops who flatly defy the Pope to his face on this thing now confidently quoting the Pope.  “You see?” they will say, “the MP is meant only for the Old Farts and the damn SSPX schimatics!”  And I can see that from the remarks of the Pope.

Next, what is this business about fundamental identity?  Is he using the word identity technically- probably not… the press wouldn’t get it.  But maybe he is… I don’t know.  And without knowing I can only guess at the probable meanings.  Interpreted broadly, it could just mean that the two mass are both valid and therefore have a fundamental identity.  But every valid rite could have that said of it and then it would be superfluous at best to say that… then again, the obvious often needs to be stated.  But still, that doesn’t make sense here.  He can’t mean (or can he?) that the two masses are identical, strictly speaking.  That is obviously untrue.  But add “fundamental” to the mix and now I am really confused.  What does fundamental mean?  Back to the first option?  No, that is not satsfactory.  But what is?  The fact seems to be that the is a fundamental non-identity between the two forms, or rites or whatever they are supposed to be called now.

What is interesting to me is that in his valiant effort to promote the Hermeneutic of Continuity, he is actually using a Hermeneutic of Discontinuity.  The very intent of the authors of the New Mass was a break with the past.  One of the framers even gloated that the Old Roman Rite had been destroyed when replaced by the New which was conceived (at least in part) to make the liturgy more compatible with protestant worship.  Of course, the approval of the Lutheran “bishops” verified that!  To try and make a rite that was intended to be a break with the past continuous with that past is in discontinuity with the past 40 years.  He did write the preface to Gamber’s book didn’t he?  He was a friend of Machael Davies wasn’t he?  I am sure he knows Davies’ monumental trilogy, doesn’t he?  Not to mention V2 called for a renewal or revision (not unheard of in the Church, and not unwelcomed either.  The Novus Ordo Missae was not was the Council called for and I am about tired of hearing the NO in conjunction with the Council.  The Council did not call for a wholesale rewriting of consecrations, etc.  But, that is all part of the new lingo.  V2 equals NO. 

The end wil be that the liberals and traditionalists will not like this statement and for the same reasons.  The New Mass and the Old Mass really are different (though valid).****  The liberals want it to be much more different than it was intended to be and they for sure don’t want anybody saying it is like the old.  The traditionalists know that it is different and don’t like hearing that it isn’t different.  The only folks that will be happy with the comments by the Holy Father are the papal positivists, which constitute a majority of catholics (I think they are more than 50% anyway).

 

 

****It really chaps my backside that I gotta insert that little though valid crap after saying there is a real difference between the two masses.  The damned sophists have been successful in beating us at the word game… sophists always are good at that.

Advertisements

September 13, 2008 Posted by | Religion | Leave a comment