This is an extract from a piece on Philip Blosser's site by Nicholas Postgate, it is a good meditation for priests at the beginning of the Sacred Triduum. I am a fraid it is a bit biased towards the Old Rite. It is part of a much longer article which speaks of the priest in the New Rite as a "talker and performer", which, so often, is true. It gives an insight to why the Holy Father thinks that the whole Tradition of the Liturgy should be available to the Faithful.
The old rite stresses the unworthiness of the priest himself, and continually asks that he, and the rest of us, be made worthy by a divine initiative of mercy. The priest may well be vain or egoistic himself and that may affect his entire ministry, especially outside of liturgical functions; yet the classical order of Mass goes constantly against the grain of fallen nature, it constantly asks of the priest a self-abnegation out of obedience to the aw of the liturgy, it almost forces him to enter its rhythm and the lilt of its language, so dominating is the ceremonial aura. It would take a fairly corrupt priest to ignore, trifle with, or undermine the old ordo Missae. Think about it: in the traditional rite, the priest himself, all gloriously attired and set apart as a consecrated mediator, of whose superior status there never was the slightest doubt, nevertheless beats his breast, bows low, asks for the grace to offer the sacrifice worthily, purifies and prepares himself throughout the liturgy until the act of consecration, when Jesus speaks in propria persona – as though the liturgy were saying: “You, O human priest, in spite of all your prayers, are still unworthy; I, the Incarnate Word, the Eternal High Priest, must step in and act for you, offering myself to the Father.” When this liturgy formed the minds and hearts of the faithful, there was hardly a whimper about the “need” for women priests. Could one have then coveted the priesthood as though it were a position of merely human authority, a matter of facilitating a simple ritual action, as it now appears to be on account of the new liturgy? The old rite in its solemn silence almost shouts that the priest bears the burden on his own shoulders, as Christ bore the weight of the rood. What lay person would stand up and say, “Give that burden to me, it is my right, it is unjust for you to hold it to yourself”?
3 comments:
Jean Guitton, a friend of Paul VI, spoke with him shortly before HIs death in 1978. They sat in the Vatican gardens, under a gazebo sitting in wicker chairs and sipping cool drinks (if you can believe Paul VI relaxing like this!). IN His notes, Guitton states that upon being asked about the liturgy of Vatican II, Paul VI responded that He had absolutely no idea that such a disaster would have followed the introduction of the revised Mass, and deeply regretted it. He told Guitton that He had been in agony over the state of the Mass, and wished that He had had the courage to correct the destruction...but didn't.
He was very prophetic, stating that He knew His time was very short, and therefore it was up to His successor (ultimately John Paul II), to correct the abuses and the destruction of the Mass. Paul VI voiced his regret for the whole liturgical debacle, which is more than I thought He would ever do.
Very few know of this conversation. It's been largely supressed. Jean Guitton was very famous in His day, but this particular event is hardly remembered. I found it on the web,on You Tube in a French language interview Guitton gave to a Paris radio station after Paul VI's death (early 1980's).
I read before, that Paul VI had remarked to a Cardinal, days before his unexpected death, that He regretted the Novus Ordo, and indeed the Council and what came from it, saying that He was "like a train conductor put in charge of a train going on a course I would not have chosen to follow.."
I used to despise Paul VI, because I thought Him throughly knowledgeable and responsible for the disaster of the Mass, religious life, the end of the Papal Court, ritual etc. ONly now am I learning that underlings (Bugnini, Marini, and others such as Cardinal Willebrands, Lecaro, Suenens, and others forced a radical liberal agenda on the Pope.) Being weak and indecisive, in many things He followed wherever the wind blew.
Paul VI was a tormented, unhappy Pope. I feel sorry for him.
Hopefully Benedict XVI will not repeat this sad story with his decisions (or lack of them)
I have heard that Pope Paul VI commented to Jean Guitton on the possibility that, with regard to the state of the Church, they might be living "in the last days". I think that he passed away with a heavy heart.
We must never lose sight of the good that he did: for instance, releasing Humanae Vitae in the face of extremely fierce opposition.
We should keep him in our prayers.
Montini was as closely involved with the late liturgical movement, from the early 1950's on, as anyone; he knew exactly what was going on, being Pius XII's chief liaison with the movement. The groundplan for the Novus Ordo was laid down under his eyes at the liturgical Congresses of Lugano and Maria Laach, and he restored Bugnini, from his earlier fall under John XXIII. There can be no doubt at all that he was entirely au fait with Bugnini's general outlook and attitudes to liturgical reform. He simply believed that the Papacy could do more or less whatever it liked with the liturgy, and nothing but good could come of it. I strongly suspect that Mediator Dei tells a similar story.
Post a Comment