| Letter #76, 2023 Thursday, March 23: Roche The Novus Ordo represents a “change in the theology of the Church”: Cardinal Roche British Cardinal Arthur Roche, 73 (link) the Pope’s head of the Dicastery for Divine Worship since 2021, spoke briefly in a BBC report on Sunday, March 19 (link) on the issue of the Vatican’s limiting of the Traditional Latin Mass (abbreviated as the “TLM”) in 2021. The BBC report also included the opinions of several British Catholics who attend and appreciate the old rite of the Mass. Roche’s abbreviated remarks featured most prominently his claim that, in regard to the liturgy, in regard to what happens at Mass, “the theology of the Church has changed.” This was striking, and is material for reflection. Roche explained his viewpoint this way: “You know, the theology of the Church has changed. Whereas before, the priest represented, at a distance, all the people — they were channeled, as it were, through this person who alone was celebrating the Mass. It is not only the priest who celebrates the liturgy, but also those who are baptized with him. And that is an enormous statement to make.” He is right: it is an “enormous statement to make.” Enormous, because it seems to say what very few up to now have been willing to say explicitly: that there has not been “continuity” in Catholic teaching on this matter from prior to the Council, through the Council, and after the Council, up until today, but a kind of “rupture,” a “change” in teaching. However, it seems that it was the chief burden of Pope Benedict XVI‘s theological endeavor to express, define and defend the belief that what the Church believes about the liturgy, about the Mass, was not a rupture with the past, was not changed by the Council, but was in continuity, presenting traditional teaching at and after the Council in a way which enabled the inner, unchanging, meaning, the perennial meaning, the meaning handed down “from the beginning,” from apostolic times, of the Church’s teaching on the Mass, and the priesthood, to be presented effectively in this period of history, our present time. Not change, but continuity. Because it would create a theological problem to say “the teaching has changed.” The striking thing about what Roche is saying is precisely this, that it seems to contradict the central teaching of Pope Benedict: that the new Mass is not simply a “more accessible” Mass for ordinary people in the pews (because, for example, the words are in the vernacular rather than an ancient language, Latin, that few people know) but that it actually represents a “change” in the theology of the Mass. Is this actually what the assembled bishops at the Second Vatican Council said, or intended? Is there any place where the Council Fathers say “we are going to have a new theology of the Mass”? (Evidently, considering what the Church had taught up to that time on the matter was in some way deficient, or incomplete.) Is it not rather the case that Pope John XXIII and the Council Fathers said, “we would like to keep the same theology of the Mass as always, but allow the ordinary faithful to understand it better”? And is it not the case that some of the changes made — in order to make the Mass “more accessible” — like (for example) the shift of the position of the priest, from facing the altar to facing the people, had the opposite effect from the one intended? That is, in the old Mass, do not the people sense clearly that they indeed, along with the priest and, as it were, led by him, are, yes, participating in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice? And is it not, rather, in the Novus Ordo, with the priest facing the people, that the assembled laity feel as if they are a passive audience at the rather unpredictable “show” that the priest presents, not according to time-honored rubrics handed down for centuries, but according to the events of the day and the whims of the particular priest? In any case, is it not the case that Catholic theology holds that the priest is ordained to offer the very bodily sacrifice of Christ Himself, in a way that the people may participate in, but cannot accomplish without the presence of the ordained priest? To suggest that the primary action of the ordained priest is not different from that participatory action of the people at Mass would seem not in keeping with traditional Catholic teaching on this matter; that is, it would seem to represent a change in theology… risking being a development not in keeping with perennial Catholic teaching. Listen to the BBC report here: (link). You must skip the first 5 minutes, and start precisely at 5:12 into the program, to hear the newsman ask Cardinal Roche about the Latin Mass, which the newsman says, quite dramatically, has become “an unexpected battleground in a Catholic culture war over the future direction of the Church.” At 5:47, someone (evidently a priest) sings a few words from the old Latin liturgy, “vere dignum et iustum est, aequum et salutare…” (“truly worthy and just it is, fitting and helpful for salvation,” link) and then the correspondent says that, while Pope Benedict provided space for the traditional Latin Mass, Pope Francis has “changed the rules” and required bishops to seek permission from Rome before any celebration of the old Latin Mass. A Catholic speaks of the beauty of the silences in the old Mass. The correspondent then explains how many vibrant traditional communities are being repressed. And a priest from England who favors the celebration of the old Mass asks Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche to reverse their restrictions on the old Mass. Catholic journalist Austen Ivereigh then defends the decision of Pope Francis, saying there are valid reasons for it. Precisely at the 10:19 mark in this report, the correspondent introduces Cardinal Arthur Roche. So simply begin to listen to this report by clicking in to the 10:19 mark… Roche begins to speak at the 10:36 mark. He finishes right at the 11 minute mark. In those 24 seconds, he says the words also quoted above: “You know, the theology of the Church has changed. Whereas before, the priest represented, at a distance, all the people — they were channeled, as it were, through this person who alone was celebrating the Mass. It is not only the priest who celebrates the liturgy, but also those who are baptized with him. And that is an enormous statement to make.” That is the extent of his remarks. The report ends after another Catholic layman speak, at the 11:54 mark. So, if you wish to hear the whole BBC report on the old Mass, listen from 5:12 to 11:54. If you wish to simply listen the Cardinal Roche’s words, listen from 10:36 to 11:00. As Lifesitenews reported (link), Liturgical scholar Matthew Hazell highlighted Roche’s comments, noting that contrary to the cardinal’s claim, the teaching of the Church had not changed. He pointed to the teaching of Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei, in which the pontiff outlined the Catholic teaching on the congregation uniting themselves to the priest in the sacrifice of the Mass. ”Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ…. The fact, however, that the faithful participate in the eucharistic sacrifice does not mean that they also are endowed with priestly power. It is very necessary that you make this quite clear to your flocks… Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship…” (Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947) The Lifesitenews report also contains further discussion of these matters. —RM |
|---|
-
Join 1,479 other subscribers
Archives
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
-
Recent Posts
- REFLECTIONS BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON ON THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION
- The Church’s conscience must always be clear in examining any conflict between the Divine and natural law when justifying the acceptance of government aid and largesse.
- THE PATRIOT POST SCORES AGAIN
- THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO NOT READ IT
- MY LAST COMMENT ON THIS!!!
Top Posts & Pages
- AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE
- 2 ABOUT ME
- STAY STRONG IN THE FAITH EVEN IN THE FACE OF PERSECUTION FROM THE 'SHEPHERDS' OF THE CHURCH
- OOPS! CARDINAL DOLAN DOES IT AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
- MY MILITARY SERVICE
- IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A MAN TO BE ELECTED POPE WHILE HE IS IN THE STATE OF BEING AN EXCOMMUNICANT? THIS IS MORE THAN A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.
- A PRAYER OF DELIVERANCE FOR PRESIDENT Donald Trump
- Trump Faces Critical ChoiceAbout His Political FutureTrump's "Make America Great Again" agenda will be codified as his party's own.BY: VICTOR DAVIS HANSONNovember 25, 2020Donald Trump is nearing a crossroads.Those who allege that he has endangered the tradition of smooth presidential transitions by not conceding immediately after the media declared him the loser suffer amnesia.When Trump was elected in 2016, the Washington establishment lost its collective mind. The top echelon of the FBI and CIA were still spreading a fraudulent Christopher Steele dossier paid for by the campaign of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee.Shortly before Trump’s inauguration, President Barack Obama called Vice President Joe Biden, national security adviser Susan Rice, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Director James Comey into the Oval Office. The purpose of the meeting was reportedly to collate progress reports about how best to continue government surveillance of Trump’s designated national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and thereby disrupt the transition.Flynn’s name was soon unmasked, apparently by Obama administration officials, and then illegally leaked to the press.The harassment during the transition became thematic for Trump’s next four years, which saw false evidence submitted to federal courts and other classified documents illegally leaked.No prior president has faced such hysterical opposition bent on removing him from office by a special prosecutor, concocted charges that he should be deposed under the 25th Amendment, and, finally, a failed attempt at removal via impeachment.The president’s private phone calls to foreign leaders were leaked. Media darlings and anonymous opponents within the government boasted of sabotaging Trump’s initiatives. Washington analysts and retired military officers hyped coup scenarios about how best to use force to remove him from office.So it is a bit rich for the media to now warn of Trump’s dangers to the spirit of smooth presidential transitions. Such protocols were deliberately rendered null and void in 2016.But all that is past. What matters now are the interests of the country first and Trump’s constituents second. So Trump has a number of pathways.One is to keep addressing legitimate reports of voter irregularities. He can continue to ask the courts to set aside any illegal votes that do not conform to state voting laws. His supporters demand and deserve no less than the investigation of all charges of serial voting impropriety.But Trump within days will have to prove that any such crimes and lapses warped state counts enough to have wrongly elected Joe Biden president. Trump realistically has perhaps a week or so left to make his case or concede.Then, to maintain the Senate majority for Republicans and to save the very rules and protocols of the Senate, the Supreme Court and Constitution, Trump will have to barnstorm Georgia. His challenge will be to enthuse his conservative base to reelect the state’s two incumbent senators, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler.After that?Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda will be codified as his party’s own. He has a year or more to decide whether he wishes to play kingmaker among would-be Republican congressional and presidential candidates or run himself for a second term. The two options are ultimately not mutually exclusive.By then there is some chance that the country will have been turned off by a hard-left shift by Biden, surrogate to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wing of his party. Such extremism caused Democrats to lose House seats in 2020.Trump can bask in a successful first term that remade the Republican Party into a multiracial coalition of the broad middle class. His Middle East and China resets will unlikely be altered by future presidents.Trump finally did close the border to illegal immigration. His initiatives to revitalize America’s interior ended the notion that industrial decline was inevitable rather than a silly choice.But Trump’s other alternative is bleaker. Currently, Trump-affiliated lawyers claim they can prove their bombshell allegations of historic voting fraud by leftists and foreign interests. They further claim that Trump was robbed not of a close election but of a veritable landslide, constituting the greatest scandal in U.S. history.But so far none of these advocates have produced the requisite whistleblowers, computer data or forensic evidence to prove their astounding charges. If they do not produce it in a few days, and if Trump pivots to put his fate in their hands, then the pilloried Republicans may well lose the Senate races in Georgia. And with that historic setback he would endanger his legacy, his influence and perhaps a crack at a second presidential term.In blunter terms, Trump may be forced to choose within days whether he wishes to emulate Andrew Jackson, the aggrieved victim of the crooked bargain of 1824 that denied him victory in that year’s presidential election. Jackson stormed back in 1828 to an overwhelming populist victory fueled by a righteously aggrieved following.Otherwise, Trump would risk being reduced to the status of sore presidential losers like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. For all their media accolades, Gore and Clinton never really accepted their losses in 2000 and 2016, respectively. Despite their supposed magnanimity, Gore and Clinton turned ever more bitter, shrill and conspiratorial — and ended up caricatured and largely irrelevant.
- MY HONOR ROLL OF BISHOPS
- MY FAVORITE PSALM
Top Clicks