Monday, May 18, 2009

Those Dirty Traditionalists Don't Matter

Not when it comes to the Traditional Mass, at least. That's the point made by Cardinal Canizares Llovera in the foreword of a new book called The Reform of Benedict XVI by Fr. Nicola Bux.

Quick note: I tend to hate the word "traditionalist, but it's what he said, so we're just going to toll with it.

Per The Hermeneutic of Continuity, His Eminence begins by discussing how "preconciliar" has become some sort of epithet. He continues:

Today, thanks to the Motu Proprio, this situation is changing notably. And it is doing so in large part because intention of the Pope has not only been to satisfy the followers of Monsignor Lefevbre, nor to confine himself to respond to the just wishes of the faithful who feel attached, for various reasons, to the liturgical heritage represented by the Roman rite, but also, and in a special way, to open the liturgical richness of the Church to all the faithful, thus making possible the discovery of the treasures of the liturgical patrimony of the Church to those who still do not know it. How many times is the attitude of those who disdain them not due to anything other than this ignorance! Therefore, considered from this last aspect, the Motu Proprio makes sense beyond the presence or absence of conflicts: even if there were not a single "traditionalist" whom to satisfy, this "discovery" would have been enough to justify the provisions of the Pope.

This isn't even the best part of the shpiel. Get this:

How many priests have been called "backward" or "anticonciliar" because of the mere fact of celebrating in a solemn or pious manner or simply for fully obeying the rubrics!

How many, indeed. It seems to be a fairly regular occurrence that I hear folks complaining about a priest because he doesn't do disco or Disney liturgy. Instead, he actually believes in offering Mass the way the Church wants, namely, in a reverent fashion with actual sacred music and an emphasis on the Eucharist.

Who would complain about such a thing?

Oh, yeah. I forgot.

No comments: