...I cannot help being hopeful.

Dear Inocencio
I think that's our obligation, indeed.

Rotten Orange,
I know what you mean but I cannot help being hopeful.
Here is another positive sign, I copied this from Fr. Z's blog:
Solemn High Mass in the Extraordinary Form will be celebrated on Oct. 7, Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, at 7 pm, Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Sacramento CA. It will be followed by Rosary and Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament. The Mass will be offered in atonement for the sins of abortion and in cooperation with the 40 Days for Life Prayer Vigil. Father Robt. Novokowsky, FSSP, Pastor of St. Stephen the First Martyr will celebrate the Mass assisted by parochial vicars, Fr. Matthew McNeely, FSSP, and Fr. Frederico Masutti, FSSP. The parish schola cantorum will chant and the mixed choir and choristers will offer polyphony. the choristers are ages 8-12, taught under the rules of the Royal School of Choristers. They are unique in the modern traditional world, keeping alive an ancient custom.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

More good news...
Liturgical shakeup
Benedict XVI replaces all members of Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff

Dear Inocencio
I heard about it last Friday on Raymond Arroyo's program. The bad thing is that these good changes and their outcome don't seem to get down the Equator...

More good news...
Liturgical shakeup
Benedict XVI replaces all members of Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

God bless Pope Benedict XVI!
Pope returns to old way of distributing Communion
22 hours ago
VATICAN CITY (AP) — A papal aide says Pope Benedict XVI intends to return to the old way of distributing Communion at Masses.
Benedict's master of liturgical ceremonies said in an interview Wednesday in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the pontiff will place the Communion host in the mouths of the faithful who kneel before him.
That's how Roman Catholics received Communion in the years before the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. The reforms made it possible for faithful to take the host in their hands while standing.
Benedict gave Communion to kneeling faithful during his trip this month to southern Italy.
The aide, Monsignor Guido Marini, says that distributing Communion the old way helps faithful be devout.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

More interesting words from Archbishop Ranjith.
Vatican official: Church should reconsider Communion in the hand
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

As far as the prisoner in the Vatican idea goes, I'd write it off as a Jack Chick fantasy if it weren't for all the reports of albino monks milling around Rome these days...

Very interesting article and excellent picture.
The Roman Curia Wakes Up and Strikes Three Blows
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Interesting words from Abp. Rajinth, Secretary of the Congregation of Divine Worship on the resistance of many bishops to Summorum Pontificum:
“The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.”
God Bless,
Matt

Ah, the duplicate key to the wardroom ice-box, again!
The strawberries! The strawberries! Geometric logic!

The Pope is not necessarily a "free agent" these days (for lack of a better term). There are rumors that he is a virtual prisoner in the Vatican, that he can do or say nothing without the approval of others. Various rumors recount various degrees of incapacitation by these imposed limitations, up to and including threats to his life.
Dude,
Correct me if I'm wrong (perhaps SDG?), but isn't this from The Godfather: Part III?

If the Holy Father (JPII) didn't approve of Marini's abuses, why didn't he replace him? Possibly politics. He's only human, after all, and just as capable of sin and error as the rest of us; his infallibility comes into play ONLY when he is teaching "ex cathedra" on matters of faith and morals. It does not necessarily extend to his actions. This is most definitely a case where "do as I say, not as I do," is actually a very serious recommendation.
/
There is also a darker possibility. The Pope is not necessarily a "free agent" these days (for lack of a better term). There are rumors that he is a virtual prisoner in the Vatican, that he can do or say nothing without the approval of others. Various rumors recount various degrees of incapacitation by these imposed limitations, up to and including threats to his life. We've had one Pope, JPI, die in office after barely a month or two; it has been said he was murdured because he wouldn't toe the line. How true are all these rumors? There's no way of knowing, but it may be a good idea to keep them in mind when the Pope doesn't do something that he probably ought to do, or vice-versa. After all, we know that a Russian shot JPII, but the reason has never been made known. Clearly, it was because he stood against Communism; it may be that he was considering performing a consecration of Russia. We don't know.
/
As for the dancing - Wasn't it JPII who condemned "liturgical dancing?" Once again, do as he SAYS, not as he does.

Ben,
if it can be proven to the satisfaction of the community that a particular expression of worship is truly communal, then this objection would be met, and it simply remains the responsibility of the competent authority to make the proper dispensation and eventually codify it when practical.
The theological error here is that it is for the community to determine truth, and that the primary nature of the true worship of God is that it is communal. The Church is hierarchical and authority flows from God to Holy Father and the Bishops, they recieve no authority from the laity for anything.
God Bless,
Matt

In the case of Henry and Catherine, Henry claimed that Catherine and her supporting witnesses had lied to the Pope that she had never consummated her marriage to Arthur, Henry's brother. It was on this ground that the dispensation was granted.
Of course, it was a ridiculous suggestion, since Catherine and Arthur, both young teenagers, had been under a great deal of supervision, with both the English and Spanish guardians with them set against an early consummation of the marriage. And if there'd been a hint of that going on at the time, it would have come out during the application for a dispensation to marry Henry. So Henry was obviously the one lying to get an annulment, not Catherine to get a dispensation.
But supposing a hypothetical situation where a party did conceal an impediment, an annulment could be granted. It was just obvious this wasn't the case, and that Henry wanted the Pope to act dishonestly for his own personal pleasure.

Eileen R,
Keep those Factoids coming in!
THANKS!

Going straight to the source, the Roman Missal, I found these passages, the last ones of document to shed great light on our discussion. I hope this helps. In Christ, Ben
395. Finally, if the participation of the faithful and their spiritual welfare requires variations and more thoroughgoing adaptations in order that the sacred celebration respond to the culture and traditions of the different peoples, then Bishops' Conferences may propose such to the Apostolic See in accordance with article 40 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for introduction with the latter's consent, especially in the case of peoples to whom the Gospel has been more recently proclaimed. The special norms given in the Instruction On the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation should be carefully observed.
Regarding procedures to be followed in this matter, the following should be followed:
In the first place, a detailed preliminary proposal should be set before the Apostolic See, so that, after the necessary faculty has been granted, the detailed working out of the individual points of adaptation may proceed.
Once these proposals have been duly approved by the Apostolic See, experiments should be carried out for specified periods and at specified places. If need be, once the period of experimentation is concluded, the Bishops' Conference shall decide upon pursuing the adaptations and shall propose a mature formulation of the matter to the Apostolic See for its decision.
396. Before, however, proceeding to new adaptations, especially those more thoroughgoing, great care should be taken to promote the proper instruction of clergy and faithful in a wise and orderly fashion, so as to take advantage of the faculties already foreseen and to implement fully the pastoral norms concerning the spirit of a celebration.
397. Furthermore, the principle shall be respected according to which each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi).
The Roman Rite constitutes a notable and precious part of the liturgical treasure and patrimony of the Catholic Church. Its riches are of benefit to the universal Church, so that were they to be lost, the Church would be seriously harmed.
Throughout the ages, the Roman Rite has not only preserved the liturgical usages that arose in the city of Rome but has also in a deep, organic, and harmonious way incorporated into itself certain other usages derived from the customs and culture of different peoples and of various particular Churches of both West and East, so that in this way, the Roman Rite has acquired a certain supraregional character. In our own times, on the other hand, the identity and unitary expression of this Rite is found in the typical editions of the liturgical books promulgated by authority of the Supreme Pontiff, and in those liturgical books corresponding to them approved by the Bishops' Conferences for their territories with the recognitio of the Apostolic See.
398. The norm established by the Second Vatican Council—that in the liturgical reform there should be no innovations unless required in order to bring a genuine and certain benefit to the Church, and taking care that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing — must also be applied to efforts at the inculturation of the same Roman Rite. Inculturation, moreover, requires a necessary length of time, lest the authentic liturgical tradition suffer contamination due to haste and a lack of caution.
Finally, the purpose of pursuing inculturation is not in any way the creation of new families of rites, but aims rather at meeting the needs of a particular culture in such a way that adaptations introduced either in the Missal or in combination with other liturgical books are not at variance with the distinctive character of the Roman Rite.
399. And so, the Roman Missal, even if in different languages and with some variety of customs,164 must be preserved in the future as an instrument and an outstanding sign of the integrity and unity of the Roman Rite.

Hi Matt!
"if the pope or the local ordinary permits for a short time some liturgical experimentation in a very careful way, then I could see how this could be a good thing in certain communities that are far removed from the Judeo-Christian heritage." -- me
"If the pope approves an indult to the rubric, it is within his authority, it may result in bad liturgy nonetheless. The local ordinary has competencies defined by the Holy See and it is disobedience for him to go outside his bounds. You provide no evidence of the goodness liturgical experimentation in the face of the saints and hundreds of years of Church discipline in the matter." -- you
You say it may result in bad liturgy...since you did not say it WILL result in bad liturgy, then I suppose you accept the possibility that an exemption to the rubric COULD provide a better worship experience, which was my only point. I was only interested in speaking about the hypothetical and not interested in giving evidence for any particular liturgy. So, are we agreed on the hypothetical?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every act of worship at mass is a symbol, an outward sign of our interior love and adoration for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If the outward symbols change, but the interior love and adoration which they express do not, then strictly speaking, in as far as that goes, there should be no problem. Remembering worship at the mass is a communal event however, it must be regulated with the norms, for which the GIRM is a great source. However, if it can be proven to the satisfaction of the community that a particular expression of worship is truly communal, then this objection would be met, and it simply remains the responsibility of the competent authority to make the proper dispensation and eventually codify it when practical. The last objection might be that the Mass, more than being communal expression of worship, is nowadays truly a worldwide expression of worship. This might preclude certain traditional expressions of worship that have not sprung up from our Jewish heritage. That would be sad, but perhaps necessary to preserve unity. I'm not convinced about this, but certainly it pains me to see people like Matt and Joe who are pained about certain irregularities, albeit thousands of miles away from their homes." -- me
"Have you been reading from the works of the Dutch Dominicans? The highlighted belief is condemned. It sounds to me like you need to read a little Pascendi." -- you
I have no clue who those guys are unless they're the folks that CWNews have been rightfully giving a bad rap. I haven't read any theology book beyond a Scott Hahn primer, so I have to claim personal inspiration for most of my good and bad ideas. I reread my statement that you claimed heretical. One typo while quickly typing without proofreading that may satisfy your concern, is that I meant: "...if it can be proven to the satisfaction of the competent authority [not community as was in the original post]" Perhaps that assuages your concerns. So, basically it says now that if a community of believers has a particular form of worship that they would like to implement, and legitimate authority determines that it is true worship, then when that dispensation is granted (so that it won't be an act of disobedience), they can incorporate that expression of worship, just like those who got an exemption for the liturgical dance at the referred canonization anniversary Mass of Juan Diego (assuming it was sought and given - I'm just using the example in a hypothetical sense anyway).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"BOTTOM LINE, given infinite resources of investigation, if the competent authority (the pope? the prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship? the local ordinary?) can know that certain liturgical expressions represent true worship for a community, those forms of worship should be allowed in that community. Not allowing such could eventually evolve into personal sin on the part of those in authority for leading people away from Christ." -- me
"Your theology here has no basis in Catholic teaching. It is the true WORSHIP OF GOD that is at issue." -- you
I am talking about true worship here too so I don't understand what the last comment means. As to my theology having no basis in Catholic teaching, that is a great claim which I would like to see substantiated if you can, however in the course of logic, I can realize that the normal burden of proof would be on me to show that it is. However, if you can help a brother out and show how it is anti-catholic, it can save us both time. Anyways I appeal to logic which is how God operates, right? Basically, if a dispensation for a Mass rubric could exist, what does it exist for? I would think dispensations exist to recognize certain innovations not mentioned and perhaps contrary to the norms of the GIRM. When should these innovations be granted exemptions? After a competent church authority determines that the intended act of worship is pure and not distracting to the community. Once the authority determines that this intended act of worship is true worship and would cause no scandal in the community, then I surmize that the legitimate authority's withholding of the necessary dispensation just because that's the way it's not normally done would likely consitute personal sin because the community runs the risk of turning away from the Church because they can't worship in a full sense in a way that connects to them (run-on sentence apologies). Surely this is all logical?
Got some questions for you: am I right in assuming that rubric dispensations exist? and if so, why do you suppose they would be granted? I assume to allow experimentation in certain circumstances away from the standard rubrics, but I guess I could be wrong in that supposition.
I'm not sure you read a later post segment of mine that maybe helps clear my position for you: "However, I am not that naive either. Rock-and-roll for our culture, for example, has been connoted with drugs and illicit sex and a pervasive attitude of rebellion for authority. I cannot believe that from here until the end of the world that such music should ever ever have a place in our liturgy. As I said, it all determines with VERY CAREFUL, SCRUPULOUS, and COMPETENT authority making this determination.
In other words, I am no expert about Aztec music and dance. It has no place in the liturgies that I attend and would disturb me greatly. However, if the competent authority can tell the pope that such music and dance will lead Aztecs honoring the first (only?) Aztec saint to a closer understanding and union with almighty God, then who am I to argue to have that taken from them? Who are you? Let us all, in great humility, mind our own business on the subject."
Thanks for your blessings and peace be with you. It's good to discuss something with someone who is obviously very zealous for the Lord and his Holy Mass!

Jordan:
And yet the fact remains that the only way the Pope could have granted Henry and annulment so he could marry his leman was to withdraw the dispensation that the Pope had previously granted allowed Henry and Catherine to marry, something that just isn't done and at least practically speaking is impossible.
No, it's not impossible. Dispensations and annullments are not infallible. They are accurate to the extent that the people testifying and the judges are of good faith. Even the Pope cannot make an accurate judgment if the witnesses are all lying about the situation.
In the case of Henry and Catherine, Henry claimed that Catherine and her supporting witnesses had lied to the Pope that she had never consummated her marriage to Arthur, Henry's brother. It was on this ground that the dispensation was granted.
Of course, it was a ridiculous suggestion, since Catherine and Arthur, both young teenagers, had been under a great deal of supervision, with both the English and Spanish guardians with them set against an early consummation of the marriage. And if there'd been a hint of that going on at the time, it would have come out during the application for a dispensation to marry Henry. So Henry was obviously the one lying to get an annulment, not Catherine to get a dispensation.
But supposing a hypothetical situation where a party did conceal an impediment, an annulment could be granted. It was just obvious this wasn't the case, and that Henry wanted the Pope to act dishonestly for his own personal pleasure.

Ben,
"....Bad liturgy and rubrics attempt to draw the Lord to us." - Matt
The structure of the whole sentence makes me think the above selection is intended to be a bad thing, but the words themselves don't suggest that to me. Just to be clear, can you expand on this point please.
Yes, it's a bad thing. We must conform ourselves to Christ and the Cross. A Faith that we attempt to change is no Faith at all, just humanism. We go to Mass to be uplifted, not entertained.
They can't be separated. Intentional breaking of liturgical rubrics is a sin of disobedience, as such is bad liturgy by definition. Even liturgy according to the rubrics can be bad, if it violates the spirit of the rubrics, or the reverence of the occasion, is theologically weak, etc.
but if the rubric is broken through ignorance, or reluctance (the missionaries forgot to bring the gold chalices and used clay ones from the neighbor), and there still results true worship or heartfelt contrition, I can imagine that the Lord could be pleased about a Mass without the proper rubrics being met.
A principle of Canon Law is that you can not be obligated to perform the impossible. Clearly for a grave reason Mass may be celebrated at a place not set aside, or without the full material requirements without any culpability. If this is a matter of neglect rather than true necessity, the neglect itself may be carry culpability, while the violation itself may not.
if the pope or the local ordinary permits for a short time some liturgical experimentation in a very careful way, then I could see how this could be a good thing in certain communities that are far removed from the Judeo-Christian heritage.
If the pope approves an indult to the rubric, it is within his authority, it may result in bad liturgy nonetheless. The local ordinary has competencies defined by the Holy See and it is disobedience for him to go outside his bounds. You provide no evidence of the goodness liturgical experimentation in the face of the saints and hundreds of years of Church discipline in the matter.

Every act of worship at mass is a symbol, an outward sign of our interior love and adoration for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If the outward symbols change, but the interior love and adoration which they express do not, then strictly speaking, in as far as that goes, there should be no problem. Remembering worship at the mass is a communal event however, it must be regulated with the norms, for which the GIRM is a great source. However, if it can be proven to the satisfaction of the community that a particular expression of worship is truly communal, then this objection would be met, and it simply remains the responsibility of the competent authority to make the proper dispensation and eventually codify it when practical. The last objection might be that the Mass, more than being communal expression of worship, is nowadays truly a worldwide expression of worship. This might preclude certain traditional expressions of worship that have not sprung up from our Jewish heritage. That would be sad, but perhaps necessary to preserve unity. I'm not convinced about this, but certainly it pains me to see people like Matt and Joe who are pained about certain irregularities, albeit thousands of miles away from their homes.
Have you been reading from the works of the Dutch Dominicans? The highlighted belief is condemned. It sounds to me like you need to read a little Pascendi.
BOTTOM LINE, given infinite resources of investigation, if the competent authority (the pope? the prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship? the local ordinary?) can know that certain liturgical expressions represent true worship for a community, those forms of worship should be allowed in that community. Not allowing such could eventually evolve into personal sin on the part of those in authority for leading people away from Christ.

Your theology here has no basis in Catholic teaching. It is the true WORSHIP OF GOD that is at issue.
God Bless,
Matt

The Pope might have been more willing to consider an annulment -- the reasoning in support was not frivolous -- especially by today's standards -- but the Pope was unwilling to alienate Catherine's nephew, the King of Spain, Charles V, who was attacking, or threatening to attack, Rome. Look it up. So, considering that annulments were sometimes granted, even back then, how much of the refusal was religiously based, and how much was a political motivation?
The claim is sometimes advanced (usually by Anglicans) that the Pope's refusal of Henry VIII's request for an annulment was mainly or entirely out of politics, not out of doctrinal and moral concerns. And yet the fact remains that the only way the Pope could have granted Henry and annulment so he could marry his leman was to withdraw the dispensation that the Pope had previously granted allowed Henry and Catherine to marry, something that just isn't done and at least practically speaking is impossible. Henry essentially was asking (demanding, really) that the Pope admit it's prior dispensation was null and void, which opens the can of worms of casting into doubt the power of the Keys of St. Peter to bind and loose. So it doesn't matter what the political situation was, or who the Pope was related to, or that there may be a draft copy of an annulment for Henry that the Pope thankfully decided not to issue -- there is absolutely no way the English tyrant was going to get an annulment of his marriage to Queen Catherine.

Sorry to demean sex in my previous post...I have to untrain a warped mine...I hope you guys realize I meant illicit, non-conjugal sex.

"If they are removed from our Judeo-Christian heritage, can this even be properly described as "Christian"?" - Esau
There are probably many Christians throughout the world that culturally far removed from western civ's Judeo-Christian heritage. I can hardly believe you argue the point.
Also, my point was that if a certain action, after full and competent investigation is found to represent true love and worship for the Holy Trinity, then that could be permissable for the Mass. So, yes, in theory if Liturgical Rock and Roll meant that, then it could be assimilated into the Mass in certain communities.
However, I am not that naive either. Rock-and-roll for our culturs, for example, has been connoted with drugs and sex and a pervasive attitude of rebellion for authority. I cannot believe that from here until the end of the world that such music should ever ever have a place in our liturgy. As I said, it all determines with VERY CAREFUL, SCRUPULOUS, and COMPETENT authority making this determination.
In other words, I am no expert about Aztec music and dance. It has no place in the liturgies that I attend and would disturb me greatly. However, if the competent authority can tell the pope that such music and dance will lead Aztecs honoring the first (only?) Aztec saint to a closer understanding and union with almighty God, then who am I to argue to have that taken from them? Who are you? Let us all, in great humility, mind our own business on the subject.

However, if the pope or the local ordinary permits for a short time some liturgical experimentation in a very careful way, then I could see how this could be a good thing in certain communities that are far removed from the Judeo-Christian heritage.
If they are removed from our Judeo-Christian heritage, can this even be properly described as "Christian"?
Let's say we added innovations such as:
- Benny Hinn Healing Services
- Dancing with the Celebrants
- Liturgical Rock-n-Roll
- Altar Calls
and all manner of popular Protestant and perhaps even secular practices; and, because of their popularity, they attracted greater audiences to the church.
Are you telling me that because of the end result (e.g., the drawing of larger audiences to the Church), these innovations are to be found acceptable?
In other words, it seems like you are willing to accept such innovations into the Church while sacrificing the very Tradition as handed down from Apostolic times, which lies at the very heart of Catholicism.

Many of the ideas promoted by the leaders of the Protestant Reformation find their origins in the Eastern church (e.g. use of vernacular in the liturgical services).
ArizCalFlaLaw:
With all due respect, I would refrain from making such general statements.
There are large divides between the ideas of the Protestant reformers and those of the Eastern Church.
In spite of the schism between the Eastern and Western Church, I would venture to state that theologically and liturgically, there is greater agreement between the two churches than there is between Protestantism and the East.

"....Bad liturgy and rubrics attempt to draw the Lord to us." - Matt
The structure of the whole sentence makes me think the above selection is intended to be a bad thing, but the words themselves don't suggest that to me. Just to be clear, can you expand on this point please.
Also, please note that I mentioned if the two points could be separated - i.e., are there any broken rubrics, per se, that have succeeded in drawing people to the Lord? If it is outright disobedience, surely that offends the Lord greatly (because of the connoted sin of pride), but if the rubric is broken through ignorance, or reluctance (the missionaries forgot to bring the gold chalices and used clay ones from the neighbor), and there still results true worship or heartfelt contrition, I can imagine that the Lord could be pleased about a Mass without the proper rubrics being met. Again, all hypothetically.
I don't think it has been mentioned in this discussion yet, but we also have to remember that the Church is a living organism, guided by the Spirit. Where rubric breaking would cause scandal and laxity and a diminishing of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in certain communities, then it should not be allowed. However, if the pope or the local ordinary permits for a short time some liturgical experimentation in a very careful way, then I could see how this could be a good thing in certain communities that are far removed from the Judeo-Christian heritage.
Every act of worship at mass is a symbol, an outward sign of our interior love and adoration for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If the outward symbols change, but the interior love and adoration which they express do not, then strictly speaking, in as far as that goes, there should be no problem. Remembering worship at the mass is a communal event however, it must be regulated with the norms, for which the GIRM is a great source. However, if it can be proven to the satisfaction of the community that a particular expression of worship is truly communal, then this objection would be met, and it simply remains the responsibility of the competent authority to make the proper dispensation and eventually codify it when practical. The last objection might be that the Mass, more than being communal expression of worship, is nowadays truly a worldwide expression of worship. This might preclude certain traditional expressions of worship that have not sprung up from our Jewish heritage. That would be sad, but perhaps necessary to preserve unity. I'm not convinced about this, but certainly it pains me to see people like Matt and Joe who are pained about certain irregularities, albeit thousands of miles away from their homes.
BOTTOM LINE, given infinite resources of investigation, if the competent authority (the pope? the prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship? the local ordinary?) can know that certain liturgical expressions represent true worship for a community, those forms of worship should be allowed in that community. Not allowing such could eventually evolve into personal sin on the part of those in authority for leading people away from Christ.
Fortunately, this delicate issue doesn't affect me too much, as I love the Novus Ordo Mass, and attend a faith community where the GIRM rubrics are perfectly practiced. Plus I get to watch EWTN every day to witness their beautiful liturgy. God be praised!

"the argument that shepherds could not have been living out in the fields during December is pretty flimsy"
I would have to agree, based on my experience.
I have been in Israel in late November, and the weather was very temperate.
I have also, as a Boy Scout leader, camped in some pretty darn cold weather. It CAN be done. The more you live outdoors, the better you get at it. You learn what to do, what to carry, what you can do without. An intelligent, experienced camper can be comfortable enough in the cold.
That simply is no argument against the narrative of the shepherds.

Ben,
if our Lord Jesus had the choice of a liturgy that followed all the rubrics or a liturgy that brought sinners closer to him
I think the point is that good liturgy and following rubrics draw us to the Lord. Bad liturgy and rubrics attempt to draw the Lord to us.
Ariz,
I don't think you're correct on the Eastern origins of "Protestant" destroyers ideas on the liturgy. A Protestant service bears no resemblance to the divine liturgy of the East.
God Bless,
Matt

Esau wrote:
ArizCalFlaLaw:
While I appreciate the information you have kindly provided, there is a significant and substantial difference in the variety of acceptable rites which find their source in the ancient church versus the variety of liturgical deviations that more so coincide with Protestant-leaning ideals.
While there are some things I am able to tolerate at Mass such as the Music, I cannot accept the incredible extent to which the abuse has taken place as to violate the very sancity of the Mass itself.
=======================================================
I agree.
The Eastern liturgical practices are acceptable because they are traditional. Tradition plays a very important part in the Eastern church. It is our way of demonstrating the unchangeableness of God and the constancy of faith.
The ad hoc innovation that occurs in some Roman Catholic churches is unacceptable.
The point of my original message is that the practices of the Roman rite are not necessarily the only way.
Merely because an idea differs from what is done in the Roman rite does not mean that it is wrong.
Many of the ideas promoted by the leaders of the Protestant Reformation find their origins in the Eastern church (e.g. use of vernacular in the liturgical services).

Very interesting, respectful, and thoughtful thread--I learned a lot
There is a website called Sarabite that has some thoughts on this topic.
Sometimes I don't read the threads on this blog as they degenerate (no fault of most good people and the blog host) to some real nonsense and name calling--this discussion is very interesting. Some real interesting and well informed posts. I think an important discussion.
Check out another blog:
http://sarabitus.blogspot.com/

Can someone please post what GIRM rubrics the outgoing archbishop neglected and/or defied (at least without prior permission to do so, if that's possible), for that hasn't yet been made clear to me.
Secondly, although I'm not sure they can be separated but if they can, if our Lord Jesus had the choice of a liturgy that followed all the rubrics or a liturgy that brought sinners closer to him, I would definitely bank on the latter (again, not saying for sure that you can have the latter without being a mass that meets all the rubrics).
An impression I'm getting from this debate is that "the Sabbath wsa made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (paraphrased from memory) might have some bearing in this discussion by way of analogy. Being loyal and obedient to rubrics is a very good thing, but we have to ask ourselves if there is a possibility of taking that attitude too far, and if so, have we reached that it in any given situation.
I'm speaking theoretically here. I have no clue how any of this applies to Archbishop Marini.
Regards, Ben

Jordan Potter:
FINALLY!
Thank-you VERY much for the elaborate details you've provided here!

Correction: Tighe mentions his dependence on the scholarship of Thomas Talley.

Nine months later, you get Nativity/Theophany, et cet. There are scholarly articles that explain this better, but I am just working off what I read many years ago.
I think it's primarily the fine scholarship of William Tighe that you're thinking of. Tighe summarises his (in my opinion rather compelling) argument here:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?...
Btw, if one were to read the infancy narrative of the Gospel of Luke quasi-historically, given what we know of the scheduling of priestly clans during the time of the Second Temple, Zechariah's scheduled service would have been around Shavuot (Pentecost).
That's not quite correct. There were 24 priestly divisions that had a rotating schedule of service in the Temple. Each division got to serve in the Temple twice a year. Zacharias was of the eighth division, that of Abijah, which served in the Temple around (or soon after) Pentecost or Shabuot, and again in the autumn, soon after the high holy days (including Tabernacles or Sukkot). However, in addition to those two regularly scheduled times in the year, all 24 divisions had to be in Jerusalem during the fall holy days, because there were so many pilgrims bringing sacrifices during the month of Tishri that every available priest had to be there.
St. John Chrysostom and other early Fathers mistakenly thought Zacharias was not just any priest, but as actually the High Priest. (That is based on the apocryphal second-century Protevangelion of James, which portrays Zacharias as well as Simeon as High Priests.) Thus, Chrysostom thought St. Luke was describing not just the daily offering of incenses (as he obviously was) but the actual Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) rites of Leviticus 16, the one day of the year when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies to offer atonement for the sins of Israel. Chrysostom knew that Yom Kippur usually happened around the autumnal equinox, which he dated to Sept. 25. St. Luke says the Annunciation took place when Elisabeth was six months pregnant. Since John the Baptist was conceived soon after Zacharias completed his Temple duties, Chrysostom calculated six months from Sept. 25, which brings us to March 25, and then nine months after that is Dec. 25.
Chrysostom was mistaken about Zacharias being the High Priest. Gabriel didn't appear to him on the Day of Atonement. St. Luke clearly says that Zacharias was a priest of the division of Abijah, and that Gabriel came to him during the time that Zacharias was discharging the duties of his division. (Lots were cast to determine which priest of the division would offer the incense each day.) It's possible that it happened during the fall holy days, when all divisions were present in Jerusalem, but St. Luke's words indicate that it was during a normal course of Temple service, therefore during one of the two usual times of year when Abijah's division was called upon to serve in the Temple.
Which would place the Annunciation around Chanukah, the birth of the Baptist around Pesach, and the birth of our Lord around Sukkot (Tabernacles), which was a more important feast than the Days of Awe in that time period.
As Liam points out, Zacharias may actually have been serving in the Temple during late spring or early summer, which would end up placing the birth of Jesus during the fall holy days. Some have pointed out that the Feast of Tabernacles (Greek Skenai) would be an especially fitting time for the Logos to be made flesh and "dwell" (Greek skenoo, to pitch a tent or erect a tabernacle) among us.
Again, Zacharias may have been serving the Temple soon after the fall holy days, which would end up placing the birth of Jesus approximately in late December or early January -- that is a result identical to Chrysostom's calculations, only without he erroneous link to Yom Kippur and the erroneous identification of Zacharias as High Priest. Some have pointed out that Hanukkah, the rededication of the Temple, started out as sort of a duplicate of the Feast of Tabernacles (In II Maccabees 1-2, Hanukkah is actually called the Feast of Tabernacles), and just as the Jews cleansed and rededicated the Temple at the first Hanukkah, so the Incarnation of Jesus cleansed and rededicated the "temple" of the human body, human nature. Indeed, as Jean Danielou pointed out in "The Bible and the Liturgy," St. Gregory of Nyssa preached a Christmas sermon in which he linked the typology of the Feast of Tabernacles with the Incarnation, saying that Christ's Incarnation has reerected our tabernacles, human nature, that had fallen down because of human sin. St. Gregory's homily interprets the great festival hymn of Psalm 117 (188) as a prophecy of the Incarnation, and in the pre-Vatican II liturgy for of Christmas Day, one of the Gradual chants came from exactly those verses of Psalm 117 (118) that St. Gregory of Nyssa had quoted and interpreted as a type of the Incarnation.
Therefore, whether Jesus was born around Tabernacles or around Hanukkah, it would be typologically fitting.
And the shepherd thing long derided by historical criticism would be more plausible under such a timeline....
That's true. However, the argument that shepherds could not have been living out in the fields during December is pretty flimsy. For one thing, we can't say for sure what the climate in the Holy Land was like back then. For another thing, Jewish tradition tells us that there were shepherds living out in the fields all year round in the vicinity of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, because there always had to be flocks available for the Temple sacrifices. That was pointed out by Alfred Edersheim (a convert from Judaism to Anglicanism) in the 1800s, in answer to Bishop Lightfoot, an Anglican who had just raised the "it was too cold for shepherds to be in the fields" argument for the first time in history. Therefore we have no reason to favor the fall theory of Jesus' birth over the winter theory -- both theories are possible, although the winter theory is the one that has the most support in Christian tradition (and, for what it's worth, several Fathers in the 300s A.D. said the Roman census records were still extant in their day, and indicated Dec. 25 as the date of Jesus' birth. Even Julian the Apostate mentions the census records, and he cited them as proof that Jesus was just a man, the son of Joseph, because He had been registered with Joseph named as His father in the census).
And this year's Sukkot ends tonight, IIRC....
Yes, today, Wednesday, Oct. 3, is the seventh day of Sukkot, called Hoshana Rabba, the Great Hosanna (cf. John 7, where Jesus is in the Temple "on the last day of the feast, that day called Great"). Tomorrow is Shemini Atzeret, the "Eighth Day" of the Feast, a final concluding festival to close Sukkot. In the days of the Second Temple, Hoshana Rabba was a day when great quantities of water were drawn in preparation for Shemini Atzeret. Interestingly, it is on that day when Jesus spoke of rivers of living water quenching man's spiritual thirst and bringing new life to man's spiritual deserts.

Liam's account of the date of the Nativity is the extent of many pagan influences on the Church--coincidence. You hear this stuff all the time: communion wafers are round just like the sun, so Catholics are sun worshipers; priests were red vestments, so did pagans, therefore Catholics are pagan.

Liam,
Thanks for all that wonderful info!
By the way, where'd you obtain all these details?

Esau
That's a common conception of the scheduling of the Nativity, but there is other evidence that linked the Annunciation (and therefore the Nativity) to the Triduum. There was a school of thought in the early Christian era that perfect people died on the anniversary of their conception. And the perfect time for the Annunciation would have been, it was thought, the vernal equinox (the first of which was considered to have occurred on the 4th day of creation - when the lights of for measuring day/night were created) or a couple of days later (the sixth day of creation, when Adam and Eve were created). This is all typology-driven, not historically driven. Anyway, the two common dates used were around April 6 (in Alexandrian practice) and March 25 (in some other places). Nine months later, you get Nativity/Theophany, et cet. There are scholarly articles that explain this better, but I am just working off what I read many years ago.
Btw, if one were to read the infancy narrative of the Gospel of Luke quasi-historically, given what we know of the scheduling of priestly clans during the time of the Second Temple, Zechariah's scheduled service would have been around Shavuot (Pentecost). Which would place the Annunciation around Chanukah, the birth of the Baptist around Pesach, and the birth of our Lord around Sukkot (Tabernacles), which was a more important feast than the Days of Awe in that time period. And the shepherd thing long derided by historical criticism would be more plausible under such a timeline.... And this year's Sukkot ends tonight, IIRC....

Puzzled:
An uprising happened in North America against these same sorts of witch-kings several hundred years earlier.
What are you referring to there? There's plenty of evidence for war in MesoAmerica, and for what you aptly call the witch-kings of their city states, but I don't see any evidence that previous wars were motivated by dislike of such sacrifice. It never stops, for one thing, from one dynasty to another. Kingdoms that once appeared peaceful just had the bodies hidden in places the archaeologists hadn't yet looked.

About Sol Invictus --
I was under the impression that the reason why the early Christians celebrated Christ's Mass at this time was to deliberately make it coincide with this pagan festival in order to make their celebration of Christ's Mass less conspicuous, being that they were under persecution at the time.

Leo,
The Christ Mass was celebrated on December 25th prior to the invention of the feast of Sol Invictus. Late December on the old calendar is indeed very likely for the birth of Christ.
Inculturation must not change meaning. It can be tricky.
The culture of central Italy is not that of all Europe. Italianization is not the same thing as Europeanization. And what was Christendom in Europe was very significantly modified by Christianity from what it had been prior to conversion.
It seems to me that an Aztec purification ritual would be a pagan rite by nature, coming from the witch-kings of the pre-Columbian American city-states. That is something to be well rid of. The locals were certainly happy to be able to throw off the yoke. Cortez was only an opportunity for the uprising. An uprising happened in North America against these same sorts of witch-kings several hundred years earlier.
I'm not sure what remains of local dress and music after 500 years, but that which exists -and isn't part of pagan ritual- would be acceptable, if appropriately used. In fact, a lot of unique culture has been developed in those 500 years. That shouldn't be thrown out just because it was influenced by Christianity or Spaniards.
Or so it seems to me, for what it is worth.

I was refering to the limpia in the article, not your experiences at Mass. I was under the impression it was used at the Papal Mass, if I've got that wrong I apologize.

Brian - did I miss something? What is the genesis of "Aztec purification ritual" in this blog thread?
It certainly was not in my descripton of the Mass I attended at the 1st annivesary Mass of St. Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin's canonization.
The Mass I attended was in full accord with the rubrics that allow for the Mass in Mexico City to be as familiar as the Spanish Masses I attend each Sunday in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C.
What did I miss?

Landrew-
I don't disagree with anything you said in your last comment, but I think most people use the word "triumphalism" with the last definition in mind;
"smug or boastful pride in the success or dominance of one's nation or ideology over others"
Smugness is never a good thing.
If this is, in fact, what most people mean when they use the word "triumphalism", then using it in some other more narrow sense doesn't really help in trying to communicate, because you end up having to constantly explain what you mean.
Yes, we hope the gospel "triumphs" over pagan superstitions... we know that Catholicism is true and that, in as much as other faiths are in opposition to Catholic faith, they are false. But, as St. Paul said, "Where is boasting? It is excluded."
I didn't invent the Catholic faith, I stumbled onto it. I can take no pride in that.

I'm all for bringing local customs into the way people live their faith, but I'm against local customs replacing the rituals of the Mass. If people want to adapt an Aztec purification ritual for Christian prayer in group worship services outside of Mass, that's fine by me. But within the Mass there's a prescribed way to celebrate the penitential rite and an Aztec purification ritual is not within the rubrics.
There are times for introducing innovation into the Mass, but this generation is not one of them. We first need to get to the point where Mass is widely celebrated reverently and according to the prescribed rubrics before we can even start to think about adding new innovations.

Landrew, Pope John Paul the Great, Jesus' vicar, wrote in Redemptoris Missio, "The Church imposes nothing, she only proposes."
To be authentic Christians, we must remember that the nature of Truth itself is servant, not master, humble, not superior. We have only to look at the life of Our Lord Jesus Christ to see this. Only the strongest are able to emulate His humility, which, by the way is the key that unlocks the human heart.
We have only to look at an image of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to see what this looks like - here's a hint: Luke 2:35.

SDG
Triumphalism:
when you obtain pleasure and satisfaction from the defeat of someone else.
We should be pleased when paganism, or any other devil-inspired plot is defeated and the Truth triumphs.
an attitude or feeling of victory or superiority: as
a : the attitude that one religious creed is superior to all others
As a matter of fact Catholicism is superior to all others. It is superior not because we believe it to be so. Catholicism is superior because it contains divinely revealed truths. It is superior because it can not contain falsehood. Truth is superior to falsehood.
Catholicism is not a "western" construct. The west (untill recently) was formed into an image of Catholicsm.

There seem to be two different arguments going on here.
One side is saying, "No, we can never let pagan rituals into the Mass!"
and the other side is saying "Art, music etc. from a previously pagan culture could be used in a liturgical setting."
And both are true. It's just that the distinction can get fuzzy on the ground. And then there's the matter of whether something harmless in itself is appropriate to the liturgy.
If someone's dancing in an Aztec costume, are they performing a Pagan ritual? I think most people would say, "No. Not unless they're meaning to honour some ancient Aztec god/chanting a prayer to an Aztec god."
But the dancing Aztec still shouldn't be dancing up the aisle of the Church during the Consecration. There are plenty of things that are not worship of false gods, and are still completely inappropriate inside Mass. Juggling, for one.
So it's probably a good idea to make distinctions between whether something is syncretistic and whether it's disrespectful to Christ's Mass. Both are serious problems, but they're different problems.
I'll take issue with this though.
Landrew:
Some parts of indigenous cultures should be excluded from the Church. The Aztecs were pagan, devil-worshiping, cannibals, who practiced human sacrifice. They also subjugated every other culture and people in what is now Mexico. Other native peoples were forced to provide a constant supply of victims for Aztec priests to sacrifice to their snake-god. The majority of these people had their hearts torn out with a stone knife.
The Aztec culture, dancers included, should be destroyed and forgotten. In its place a thoroughly Catholic culture can be established, which will liberate the former devotees of “Aztec-ism” from the bondage of paganism.
This isn't about whether Aztec culture should be incorporated into the Mass, but whether it should exist at all, so it's probably a bit off topic.
But one should remember that the peoples of Northern Europe practiced human sacrifice too, and we still maintain many aspects of culture from their days. The same stereotypically "Celtic" design you'll find in old pagan shrines and the Book of Kells. So, I think there's plenty of room for anything good in Aztec culture to exist, minus the evil.
Plus, the people the Aztecs were sacrificing also practiced human sacrifice, and basically had the same religion, for at least two thousand years back, so it's not just Aztec culture that's at question here.

"Catholic Mass in Central America has a 500 year history of no syncretization"
That's simple at odds with the facts. Latin American Catholicism is rife with syncretization and superstition. Not in the churches, but in the homes.
The Spanish and Portugese conquered Latin America and stamped out native religions, at least in public. Don't point to the Mass as the great vehicle for the establishment of Catholicism in Latin America.
The conversion of the Russians and Slavs was through preaching and liturgy in their own languages. As was the conversion of the Roman Empire through Greek and Latin, i.e, vernaculars. Conversion of Latin America succeeded DESPITE the Mass behind completely foreign to the native population.

Joe, I agree with you mostly although you will have to convince me that the elements were COMPLETELY baptized and redefined. I think that it takes some time for that to happen.
I am not defending alleged pagan practices grafted on to the body of Christ but I think that it is the Christian thing to find good faith of some sort and build on that until it is purified. Even Christ accepted the authentic and good (but perhaps incomplete) faith of non-jewish people. He knew it would grow and mature.
So I do resist "The corpse of paganism [being]grafted into the Body of Christ like some sort of Frankenstein." And I resist using my unopened wallet as a whip against the 'liturgy changers'.

Pseudomodo,
Yes, Christianity wasn't created in a vacuum. But many of the instances Newman mentions also have Jewish precedence: The use of temples, incense, lamps, and candles, offerings on recovery from illness, holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields: sacerdotal vestments, an orientation to prayer, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant (Jewish liturgical chant). But it is still evident that these elements (and those of strictly pagan origin) were completely baptized and redefined. The corpse of paganism wasn't grafted into the Body of Christ like some sort of Frankenstein, it was made thoroughly Christian first.

Sorry if I misconstrued the message (the structure of this blog makes the messages difficult to read, particular if there are several on the same topic). My point, however, remains the same. Language is not the problem. Lack of fidelity to Catholic teaching is. And that is often the result of a failure of education.