Dr. Taylor Marshall | Canterbury Tales: Eleven Great Quotes from Pope Benedict XVI on Litu...

As the Illustrious Pontificate of Benedict XVI draws to a close, an article by Dr. Taylor Marshall of Canterbury Tales testifies to the significant contribution of this Pontificate to the re-orientation of the Liturgical Reform. Indeed, the Holy Father is leaving to us a legacy of a truly Catholic liturgical reform. In this article, he puts forward eleven quotations from the Holy Father on liturgy:

Ratzinger on the Liturgical Reformers Creating a 'Fabrication, Banal Product'
The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)

Ratzinger on Those Who Appreciate the Latin Mass being Wrongly Treated Like 'Lepers'

"For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 [the older Latin Mass] should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church's whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?" (Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000)

Ratzinger on the Degeneration of Liturgy and 'Liturgical Fabricators'

"[W]e have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the 'doing' becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being." (Cardinal Ratzinger's preface to the French translation ofReform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, 1992).

Ratzinger on the 'Disintegration of the Liturgy'

"I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy." (Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977)

Ratzinger against 'Homemade Liturgy'

"It is also worth observing here that the 'creativity' involved in manufactured liturgies has a very restricted scope. It is poor indeed compared with the wealth of the received liturgy in its hundreds and thousands of years of history. Unfortunately, the originators of homemade liturgies are slower to become aware of this than the participants..." (Feast of Faith p. 67-68)

Ratzinger on the Latin Mass as the 'Holiest and Highest Possession'

“I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.” (Ratzinger Salt of the Earth (1997)

Ratzinger on the Danger of Creative "Presiders" at the Mass

In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest -- the "presider", as they now prefer to call him -- becomes the real point of reference for the whole Liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing. 

Ratzinger on the Danger of 'Creative Planning of the Liturgy'

Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the "creative" planning of the Liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, "make a contribution of their own". Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a "pre-determined pattern". (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)

Ratzinger on Why the Priest Should Not Face the People During Mass

The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is locked into itself. The common turning toward the East was not a "celebration toward the wall"; it did not mean that the priest "had his back to the people": the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together "toward the Lord". (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)

Ratzinger on the Priest and People Facing the Same Direction

On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)

Ratzinger on the 'Absurd Phenomenon' of Replacing the Crucifix with the Priest

Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord? (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)

Dr. Taylor Marshall | Canterbury Tales: Eleven Great Quotes from Pope Benedict XVI on Litu...

Quo Vadis?: The New Liturgical Movement Post-Benedict XVI

The Holy Father's Last Public Mass (Ash Wednesday 2013)

One of my apprehensions about the impending resignation of Pope Benedict from the Petrine Office is the future of the Reform of the reform of the Sacred Liturgy. I found this article in the New Liturgical Movement very insightful.

follow the link: Quo Vadis?: The New Liturgical Movement Post-Benedict XVI

Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the hermeneutic of discontinuity

"The characteristic of the rupture in the interpretation of the conciliar texts is manifested in a more stereotypical and widespread way in the thesis of an anthropocentric, secularist, or naturalistic shift of Vatican Council II with respect to the previous ecclesial tradition. . .

"One interpretation of rupture of lighter doctrinal weight has been manifested in the pastoral-liturgical field. One might mention in this regard the decline of the sacred and sublime character of the liturgy, and the introduction of more anthropocentric elements of expression.

"This phenomenon can be seen in three liturgical practices that are fairly well known and widespread in almost all the parishes of the Catholic sphere: the almost complete disappearance of the use of the Latin language, the reception of the Eucharistic body of Christ directly in the hand while standing, and the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the modality of a closed circle in which priest and people are constantly looking at each other.

"This way of praying – without everyone facing the same direction, which is a more natural corporal and symbolic expression with respect to the truth of everyone being oriented toward God in public worship – contradicts the practice that Jesus himself and his apostles observed in public prayer, both in the temple and in the synagogue. It also contradicts the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and of all the subsequent tradition of the Eastern and Western Church.

"These three pastoral and liturgical practices glaringly at odds with the law of prayer maintained by generations of the Catholic faithful for at least one millennium find no support in the conciliar texts, and even contradict both a specific text of the Council (on the Latin language: cf. "Sacrosanctum Concilium," 36 and 54) and the "mens," the true intention of the conciliar Fathers, as can be seen in the proceedings of the Council.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Auxiliary of Karaganda

December 2010


Follow the link: An Excerpt from Bishop Athanasius Schneider

On the veneration of relics

Rorate Caeli blog had this post quoting from the book of the Filipino Liturgist Fr. Anscar Chupungco, OSB entitled What, Then, Is The Liturgy?: Musings and Memoir.

Fr. Anscar said, "The veneration of bodies or relics of saints is a sad chapter in the history of the liturgy...The great reformer Martin Luther, appalled by aberrations committed on relics, fiercely took issue with the Catholic Church...I can still hear my mentor Adrian Nocent's dismissive remark when he listened to stories of relics, private apparitions, and saccharine devotions: 'It's another religion!"

The twenty fifth session of the Council of Trent (3-4 December, 1563) issued a decree "On the invocation, veneration, and relics of saints, and on sacred images":

"The holy council commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching and have charge of the cura animarum, that in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and with the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers and the decrees of the sacred councils, they above all instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them...that the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and of others living in Christ, which were the living members of Christ and the temple of the Holy Ghost, to be awakened by Him to eternal life and to be glorified, are to be venerated by the faithful, through which many benefits are bestowed by God on men, so that those who maintain that their veneration and honor are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other memorials are honored by the faithful without profit, and that the places dedicated to the memory of the saints for the purpose of obtaining their aid are visited in vain, are to be utterly condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned and now again condemn them."

My experiences as an exorcist have convinced me that the only ones who are really sad that we have relics of saints to venerate are the devils themselves. It is true that through the veneration of relics, "many benefits are bestowed by God on men." Demons tremble before such objects of veneration!

It's another religion? Maybe theirs is!

Rejoinder on Pro Multis

A reader of this blog e-mailed me a response to the arguments which I posted on behalf of the direct translation of "pro multis" in the new English Missal. I did not really understand what the other blogger was trying to say but it seems it ended with an "ad hominem" argument which sort of discredits the validity of what I quoted simply because of the prestige of Fr. Chupungco.

I will not go down to that level. Rather, I would bring out the following more objective arguments in behalf of the direct translation of "pro multis" to "for many."

Allow me to quote Matthew 26:28: "for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins." Next is the translation of Mark 14:24: "and he said to them, 'This is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many.'" Where did I get these translations? I got them from the "New Testament Confraternity Version: a Revision of the Challoner-Rheims version edited by Catholic Scholars under the patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine".

The New American Bible, which is the Scriptural source of the English Lectionary, has this translation of Matthew 26:28: "For this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." The same New American Bible has this translation of Mark 14:24: "He said to them, 'This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many.'"

The Magandang Balita Bibliya, which is the Scriptural source of the Tagalog Lectionary, has this translation of Matthew 26:28: "Sapagkat ito ang dugo ng tipan, ang aking dugo na mabubuhos dahil sa marami, sa ikapagpapatawad ng mga kasalanan." The same Magandang Balita Bibliya has this translation of Mark 14:24: "Sinabi niya, 'Ito ang aking dugo ng tipan, ang dugong mabubuhos dahil sa marami.'"

These are new translations which, surprisingly, translated "pro multis" to "in behalf of many" and "dahil sa marami." My question is: why did these Scripture scholars insist on translating "pro multis" to "in behalf of many"?

To insist on the argument that it is preferable to translate "pro multis" to "for all" simply because a prestigious liturgist like Fr. Chupungco has spoken is simply an "ad hominem" argument. If Fr. Chupungco is an authority in liturgical matters, I suppose we should also acknowledge the expertise of the bible translators in the field of Scriptural studies. If the basis of the "Institution Narrative" is the Holy Writ, why should the translation in the missal be different from the translation in the Scripture?

I find it very uncomfortable that when I celebrate the Mass of Corpus Christi during the Year B cycle, I read the gospel according to St. Mark which says "in behalf of many" only to say it differently at the institution narrative as "for all." I say two different things in the same celebration of the Mass!!!

I do not mean to be disrespectful to my teacher Fr. Chupungco but even in spite of his prestige, I still beg to differ. I hope that Fr. Chupungco does not get mad at me. He should be proud of me instead because he knows that I don't easily accept things that he said. At least, he knows that I am using my grey matter...I am thinking!

Fr. George Rutler on the New Translation, on Liturgists and on Ad Orientem

I have always been a fan of Fr. George Rutler because I find him as a man of culture. I respect his views and I love his preaching over EWTN. With what he wrote on the New English translation, liturgists and Ad Orientem, I couldn't have said it better!
Read and be educated:
Fr. George Rutler on the New Translation, on Liturgists and on Ad Orientem

Pro Multis

"The current translation of the words of Jesus over the cup has been changed in accord with the method of literal translation. The words “it will be shed for you and for all” have been revised to read “which will be poured out for you and for many” because the original Latin says pro multis (for many), not pro omnibus (for all). The new translation ignores the exegetical context of the words Jesus pronounced at the Last Supper. He was not restricting his offer of salvation to a group of people. His sacrifice was for all, as the New Testament affirms again and again, although every one must welcome in faith his offer of salvation. The apprehension that the word “all” might be interpreted as automatic salvation for all does not justify the shift to “many”. In most languages “many” and “all” are not mutually inclusive. As it stands, the new English translation of pro multis does not render faithfully what Jesus declared at the Last Supper...In 2006 the Congregation for Divine Worship sent a letter to the presidents of the conferences of bishops regarding the translation of pro multis. It urged them to correct the current translation “for all”, because the Latin text says “for many”. It elucidates that the phrase “for many” is the exact translation, while “for all” is not a translation but a catechetical explanation of the words Jesus pronounced over the cup. Biblical exegetes, like Albert Vanhoye, beg to differ." (Fr. Anscar Chupungco, WHAT’S HAPPENING TO THE ENGLISH LITURGY?)

By saying "The new English translation of pro multis does not render faithfully what Jesus declared at the Last Supper," is Fr. Chupungco implying that ICEL's mistranslation of pro multis to "for all men" is the faithful rendition of our Lord's words? He invokes the ignorance of "the exegetical context of the words of Jesus pronounced at the Last Supper" for the insistence on behalf of the more literal translation of pro multis to "for many". While invoking the authority of modern exegesis, Fr. Chupungco disregards what the Catechism of the Council of Trent said about the matter: "The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew (26:28), some from Luke (22:20), but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: for you, He meant either those who were present, or those present or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many (Heb. 9:28); and also the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine (Jn. 17:9)." (J. McHugh and C. Callian, Catechism of the Council of Trent, 227-28.)

St. Alphonsus Liguori, bishop and doctor of the Church, has this to say about the matter: "The words pro vobis et pro multis are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a cetain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all - it saves only those who cooperate with grace." (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist.)

Well, of course, Fr. Chupungco's party will say that I quote from pre-Vatican II sources and such already speaks of ignorance about modern exegesis. But is this not what St. Pius X warned us of? I think that his warning about the Modernists' bias against the Fathers of the Church can also speak for their bias against anything that is associated with Tradition:

"The Modernists pass judgement on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon Tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entrirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived." (Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 8 September 1907, 42.)

Fr. Chupungco mentioned that in 2006, the CDW sent a letter to the presidents of the episcopal conferences urging them to correct the translation "for all" because the Latin text says "for many." I could not remember the CBCP or even my own bishop sending any circular directing the correction of the translation "for all" to "for many." Why is it so? Is it because the Philippine bishops regard Fr. Chupungco as the only liturgical authority? How about the authority of the Holy See? I think we should remember that theologians, no matter how brilliant they are, should not see themselves as above the Holy See. Episcopal conferences, while relying on the expertise of their consultants, must give the letters from the Holy See greater weight than the opinion of their experts.

The New Missal: Disaster or Opportunity? [Updated]

In the New Liturgical Movement blog, this interesting article on the new Missal translation in English is worth our careful attention. Unfortunately, in the Philippines, there seems to be some silence regarding the new English Translation which has received the recognitio from the Holy See. Is there a silent "conspiracy" in the Philippines to simply ignore the new English translation? Just asking.

The whole article responds to the accusation that the new translation is a regression. I would like to post an excerpt of the article:

"the new Missal translation does not return to something past. A reading of the
texts does not reveal precious or antiquated language; there are no thee's and
thou's. This excerpt from the Third Eucharistic Prayer is not Elizabethan or
King James English:

Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial
of the saving Passion of your Son,
his wondrous Resurrection and Ascension into heaven,
and as we look forward to his second coming,
we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.

This is not antiquated English; this is formal and sacral English.

To use this kind of language is not "retrograde," nor does it represent an effort to "freeze" the "Spirit of Vatican II." It is, instead, faithful to the nature of the Liturgy -- a formal and public worship, where formal language is therefore appropriate.
Sacral language marks what we are doing as sacred and holy, not ordinary or
everyday. The Mass, as the "source and summit" from which our life in Christ
flows, is the holiest thing that we do, in which we participate in Christ's own
prayer as high priest. If that doesn't warrant language set apart from the
ordinary, then nothing does."

The author (Rev. Robert Johansen) gave this conclusion:

"The new Missal, because of its greater fidelity, will be an antidote to that
confusion. If my own effort to gauge the response of faithful Catholics shows
anything, it is that most of the people in the pews will take the implementation
of the new language in stride. Far from the "pastoral disaster" feared by some,
I believe that the new Missal, if approached in a spirit of fidelity, will
provide all Catholics with an opportunity to enrich their faith and lead to the
deeper participation in the liturgy that Vatican II envisioned."

Just follow the link:The New Missal: Disaster or Opportunity? [Updated]