 |
| S.E.R. Mons Fernando Filoni |
Well, thanks be to God, we have a Pope who is governing the Church, Summorum Pontificum, Anglicanorum Coetibus, etc.
We also have a Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship who tells us almost every time he is interviewed that the liturgical reform went wrong and that it is time for a reform of the reform. That, by the way, seems to be nothing much more that what his boss said when he was a Cardinal, and before his boss, now a Pope, called him to Rome to do that job.
This week news leaked about a new Motu Proprio reorganising the Congregation for Divine Worship so that it will concentrate in the future on...the liturgy. There is also speculation that this Motu Proprio might mention a “new liturgical movement” and somehow insist that the reorganised Congregation get on with realising this.
Then we have the official denial of the Vatican spokesman that says: “there are no grounds nor reason to see in this an intent to promote a control, of a 'restrictive' kind, by the Congregation, of the fostering of the liturgical renewal willed by the Second Vatican Council.”
Er, what? Why? Has someone in the Secretariate of State had a fit over this forthcoming Motu Proprio or something? Did Archbishop Filoni flip at the possibility of the Pope proceeding with the reform of the reform? Has everyone forgotten that, actually, “the liturgical renewal willed by the Second Vatican Council” has never been seen?
"Is there something you forgot to send to Cardinal Canizares, Excellenza"? |
The Pimpernel is full of filial devotion for the Holy Father. Ad multos annos! He has respect for the work of Cardinal Canizares. But he fears that somewhere in between the papal apartments and the Secretariate of State on the third floor of the Apostolic Palace, and the Congregation for Divine Worship across the piazza, some disciples of the past dark days, are working against the Holy Father’s program of governance.
Where is the Instruction on the implementation of Summorum Pontificum? Where is the rumoured return to the traditional manner of receiving Holy Communion? Where are the other long-rumoured parts of the reform of the reform? Who, at this moment, is running a red pen through the ‘offensive’ phrases of the coming motu proprio and preparing a briefing for the Holy Father on why they simply must not be used? Who dictated the “denial” to Father Lombardi?
Where is the problem? It is not with the Congregation of Divine Worship because Cardinal Canizares and Archbishop Di Noia stand with the Pope. Perhaps it lies with the reorganisation, introduced by Paul VI, that means everything going to or coming from the Pope goes via the Secretariate of State? Cardinal Bertone is the Pope’s man. But what of the Substitute for the General Affairs of the Church? Perhaps the 'ministry' of Archbishop Filoni’s department holds the answer?
These are serious questions, indeed! Perhaps, the Pope needs to promulgate a Motu Proprio, that reorganizes the Roman Curia to its more traditional form, where not everything passes through the politicians at the secretariat of state, but directly to the prefects of congregations. In this scenario SER Filoni will certainly be able to keep this document, for it will the last one he receives from the Holy Father. Well, unless he is named nuncio in Iran.
ReplyDeleteOMG! I am surprised Tornielli has not posted this before and so much for Whispers in the Loggia.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how you know this. But you do not know the half of it. Buona notte.
ReplyDeleteA motu on the OF would be welcome. Hopefully Pope Benedict & crew will make it clear that ad orientem is not just permissible but preferred. Also, I wouldn't mind a severe restriction on EMHC's and a return to communion on the tongue. Remember, most EMHC's _hate_ putting Our Lord on people's tongues. Putting the smackdown on communion in the hand will do away with EMHC's real quick.
ReplyDeleteThe EF has some systemic problems that are not being discussed and deserve a motu. Foremost are the anti-Jewish passages which still linger in the Breviary and Missal. It's time that the traditional community recognizes the ramifications of these prayers and readings before returning to liturgical window-dressing. Also, PBXVI's got to put an end to to SSPX talks until the bishops and their clergy stop their anti-Semitism and bizarro conspiracy theories. The talks can only pollute the charity and integrity of the Church.
Off the subject, has anyone sent the first picture into Bad Vestments? The Rev. Michael P. Forbes
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing "anti-Jewish" in the traditional breviary or missal. Let's not forget that Judaism is a false religion, and any supposed "anti-Jewish" or "anti-semitic" prayers in those books only tell the truth of the matter, and have for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Of course the way its usually used, "anti-semitism" is a silly phrase. Not all Semites are Jews and not all Jews are Semites. The altering of the Good Friday prayer was foolish because there is nothing theologically wrong with the pre-70 or pre-55 Good Friday prayer for the Jews, its pretty much straight out of the Bible. The current prayer (for both the NO and the TLM)
ReplyDeleteAs to the SSPX, yes, some of them hold weird ideas but the doctrinal talks are (hopefully) getting to the meat of the issues. Balking because of PC nonsense will just derail the whole enterprise.
Sortacatholic
ReplyDeleteFor true weirdness ("vestal virgin" weirdness) see posting above: More incensing virgins.
I do not want to get into the anti-Jewish question here, as that is not the focus of this board. Should not have brought it up. Click my name and read my blog for more info on my position.
ReplyDeleteEven so, there is nothing PC about respecting the dignity of all persons. I do not agree with Paul VI on most matters, but he was certainly right on this account: "If you want peace, work for justice."