Can Music Cause Headaches

liturgical thinking of Paul VI and the liturgical reform of 1969

many courts, spurred on by the press in general and guided by the particular approach of some Catholic theologians and bishops pseudo ditto, the total liberation of the Missal of St. Pius V ordered by Pope Benedict XVI would be a way to rebind the one hand, to some form of traditional continuity with the pre-conciliar Church, or rather a tool of convenience with the fundamentalists Catholic sectors and in order to fully introduce the discipline Church. To put it bluntly: The recent apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum would actually be an act opportunistically (well known to the thief, all thought of his condition ...), a hook to the "schismatic" of the Society of Saint Pius X, or a currency transaction with China's national church (which, as many know, is celebrating the Traditional Rite), and a personal gustito Benedict XVI has decided to be compared to the previous liturgical pomp of the Church is true, he always admired and wanted to see answer . But in no way should think of a way back in the "reform of the Council", or also called "reform of Paul VI." Oh no, great friend, yes no!

No doubt, however, that this could be the predominant core and linear single thought on this issue, some bishops have been more combative, urged by the guesses as a catastrophe, and have been more than red with rage against the return of the Traditional Mass Jovian glaring threats left and right, in some cases cause local synods to "moderate" the motu proprio despite the express prohibition contained therein, as in Italy, attempted abortion with energy for a cardinal brave or Poland or Germany or Switzerland. It has also occurred, as in most part of Latin America, which has chosen to remain a distant and disdainful silence, had almost always a discreet gesture of authoritarianism chrematistic or simply showing their absolute and silent disapproval of anyone who violates the celebration of the Traditional Mass.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos

considered appropriate, in the midst of so much fuss and anticipation that seemed to come, come out and say again that, although the Apostolic Letter is not curtailed the right of bishops in liturgical matters, the truth is that neither the Holy See and the Bishops can curtail or moderate, not interfering in the law and therefore freedom of every priest, to celebrate Holy Mass according to the traditional rite , how you want, wherever you want and when it pleases. And that the Pope would like that there was a traditional Sunday Mass in all parishes of the earth. Thus informs us in the midst of an interesting story given by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, our friend Una Voce Argentina

course, not without a clear intention is still talking about the "Missal of Blessed John XXIII", forgetting that the first provision of the Motu Proprio expresses, literally, what has never been abrogated is, in fact, the "Missal of Pius V"

Missale autem Romanum a S. Pio V promulgatum B. et Ioanna XXIII used denu editum habeatur extraordinary expressio eiusdem "Legis orandi" Ecclesiae et ob et antiquum venerabilem debit gaudeat honore eius usum. Hae duae expression "legislative orandi Ecclesiae, minime vero inducent in divisionem" legis credendi Ecclesiae, sunt enim duo usus unici Spirits romani.

which therefore has only been adopted again by Pope John XXIII.

It, however, for certain that SS Paul VI solemnly never enacted precisely he was so fond of the formulas as solemn and even pompous, as demonstrated during the Second Vatican Council in enacting the various documents voted by the Council Fathers - the new rite known as Novus Ordo , and that no formal document issued by him as universal Church law and published in the gazette of the Holy See, had by order repeal or replace the Traditional Mass with the New Missal, or Nor, in order to impose their exclusivity.

So what Paul VI thought of the liturgical reform undertaken by him since 1967? "Repealed the Traditional Rite, or formally replaced him ...?

there another way to address the issue, and would be: Is it true then, it was never repealed the Missal of St. Pius V? Happily reigning Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, said without hesitation whatsoever in his recent motu proprio that law, was never forbidden or abrogated, although it is undeniable that, in fact, was remprimido use, which came to justify the need for dictation Summorum Pontificum . Pope Paul VI, in the Consistory of May 24, 1976 meanwhile assert that, in principle, the old Missal is called eventually be completely replaced by the Novus Ordo and therefore allow for the time being in force restricted to certain special cases:

E più grave CIO and therefore, in particolare, when if you enter the divisione, proprio where congvegavit nos in unum Christi amor, in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by refusing obedience to the rules defined in the liturgical field. Is in the name of tradition that we ask all our children, to all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed Liturgy. The adoption of the new "Ordo Missae" is not left to the arbitrary course of the priests or the faithful : the Instruction of 14 June 1971 provided for the celebration of Mass in the ancient form, with the permission of the ordinary, only for elderly or infirm priests, offering the Divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Order was promulgated because if sostituisse All'Antico , matura deliberazione dopo, in seguito alle Istanza of Vatican II.

However, the fact is that the Novus Ordo was never formally enacted into law exclusive of the Church in its liturgy, nor was decreed the abolition of the old rite, which consists of reading the collection of bulletins AAS at the time, and it is surprising that the Pope called all to adopt the new rite in name only tradition and not on behalf of church discipline, as it should have been to be promulgated throughout the Novus Ordo and due form, anyway, Paul VI suffered relative in this case a mistake, because the next breath assert variously

Non il nostro santo Predecessor Pius V AVEVA reso il obbligatorio Messala riformato sotto la sua Authority, in seguito the Council of Trent.

when, in fact, not, as St. Pius V Missal was neither reformer, which compiled and purified only in matters as trivial that only a specialist could be distinguished from that used in the IV and V, neither imposed nor mandatory, but it benefited from all sorts of privileges, exemptions, amnesties and benefits than ever, anyone could prohibit reform-something that, presumably, Paulo VI always had in mind, avoiding both a ruthless as a legislative repeal suspect. Moreover, the Missal of St. Pius V had no effect but where there is no particular right or where they were not in use Missals to older than 200 years, so that the principle and practice, the Roman Missal only took effect immediately in the city of Rome, almost exclusively. The missions, especially African American and reach its peak in a few more decades from 1570, used this Missal by devotion to the Pope and due to the new diocese with no privileges or special rights to excuse the use of the Missal St. Pius V.

This statement of Paul VI was therefore incomprehensible known in the liturgical context and, indeed, was demonstrably contrary exactly true, but if we review the entire speech delivered at the consistory, will see that its purpose was actually complaining against Archbishop Lefebvre, who was appointed several times but without refuting only one of the arguments and points that were proposed by both the archbishop of Dakar, for the Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in his well-known study on Novus Ordo, or the Abbe de Nantes, among many others. This attitude, which, however, papal and yet he was not legally or universalized legal basis, while the massive Conduct adopted by the Church since 1970 in connection with this problem liturgical an obtuse and obstinate denial with reference to the Traditional Mass. And recently with the reigning pope, Benedict XVI, have found a bed, still in its infancy, of fraternal and friendly solution.

contrdictorio What man was Paul VI! At the Council, had decreed that the traditional liturgical forms should not be touched in its substance and in any case, were worthy of respect and conservation should be retained Latin as liturgical language proper to the Church without prejudice to the adoption of the vernacular for minor portions of the Mass, as the readings (which did not exist today called "Liturgy of the Word") or a few sentences, moreover, the synod convened especially to discuss the reform legislation known as Mass , Tell them rejected by the almost unanimous vote of the bishops attending for not responding to the instructions of the Council Fathers and depart significantly from the Catholic theology, but now, contrary to this important fact and his own earlier view dunk in the Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI replaced the liturgical rite that the council had recommended preserve, with the bold innovations, and even claims that, at some future completely replace the traditional liturgy.

But then, what he thinks? Because the text seems quite clear on this point: In 1976, he directs this speech to the Consistory, says the Mass of St. Pius V ever be replaced by the Novus Ordo , which means that you have in mind do sometime during his reign. However, it is a fact that was never enacted such a replacement, nor was formally adopted (at least with the same solemnity with which St. Pius V promulgated the Missal that bears his name) called Novus Ordo .

In a previous post had the opportunity to discuss our impression referred to the famous and horrific verification of Paul VI on the income of "smoke of Satan" to the Church of Christ, were addressed to the devastation in the Liturgy and purposes of Council, preferably. Few days ago, a now elderly Cardinal Virgilio Noe, former master of ceremonies of the Pope Paul VI, has confirmed this hypothesis with the largest area to the suspect. Of our beloved colleague Secretum Meum Mihi, we have the translation of the recent story that I read here (and review the excellent articles in there), in which starkly described the feelings of Pope Paul on the effects of liturgical reform. Read excerpts descollantes:

Montini for 'Satan' would classify all those priests or bishops and cardinals who do not worship the Lord by celebrating badly Mass due to an erroneous interpretation and application of Vatican II . He spoke of smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who made hay of the Holy Mass in the name of creativity, actually were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil . Therefore, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality that would distort traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.

He condemned the minds of ownership and the delusion of omnipotence that followed the liturgy of the Council. The Mass is a sacred ceremony, often repeated, everything must be prepared and studied properly respecting the canons, no one is 'dominus' Mass. Unfortunately, many after Vatican II have not understood and Paul VI considered the phenomenon of demon attack .

Then come things even worse, as the Holy Communion in the Hand, a practice that Paul VI hated with all my heart, and considered especially caused by attacks of pride demon who tried to contain as he could.

Available Instruction on the prohibition Communion in the hand of the faithful, known as Memoriale Domini, in which Pope Paul VI denounced the practice as illegal and abusive, plus considered dangerous for due respect and veneration of the Blessed Sacrament and exposed to profanity, as, indeed, has been tested with great sadness all these years. In his now remembered Encyclical Mysterium Fidei , which can and should would say, read all full at the link above left, Pope Paul VI will present its doctrine, of the Church, on this sad liturgical abuse:

not forget that once the faithful, already under the violence of persecution, and for the love of the monastic life they lived in solitude, often fed daily with Eucharist, taking Holy Communion even with his own hands, when he was absent the priest or deacon [Cf S. Basil, Ep. 93 PG 32, 483-6].

do not say this, however, that changing the guard mode to receive the Eucharist or Holy Communion, established later by Church law and still in force, but only to congratulate the one faith of the Church which always remains the same.

As is clear from this brief study, the drama of the Church in the second half of the twentieth century was limited to a rigorous two millennia centrality: the Real Presence of Christ in the midst of his Church, and had the critical witness to calificadísimo Pope Paul VI himself, in many ways, the author himself of a substantial reforms, rushed or not, exaggerated or daring, but led to its author being in the sad and horrible life being disappointed, at least, cause timely overflow onto the whole Church.

But perhaps, too, all this may become a cause of future flowering never seen, sensed but not promised, but this time real, miraculous, made from Heaven and not from the cabinet stifling of theologians and liturgists library lounge, after all, for God to bring good out of evil is easier to steal smiles to children , or much easier than that. And it will be worth seeing, if we pray enough time.