Friday, March 16, 2018

More from Fr. Hunwicke on Canonization


The rites of Canonisation have tended ... this will not surprise you ... to vary in the last seventy years. The most recent changes before this (PF) pontificate, which took place under Benedict XVI, seemed designed to impose on the rites a theological meaning which they previously had not so explicitly expressed. As Pope Benedict left the rite, before the singing of Veni Creator Spiritus the Pontiff asked for prayer that Christ the Lord would not permit His Church to err in so great a matter. And, in the Third Petition the Cardinal Prefect for the Causes of Saints informed the Pontiff that the Holy Spirit "in every time renders the supreme Magisterium immune from error (omni tempore supremum Magisterium erroris expertem reddit)".

These phrases, added by Pope Benedict, were in formulae cut out by PF when he canonised a number of beati in 2014; and subsequently.

It looks to me as though Pope Benedict's additions were intended to confirm the view that acts of canonisation are infallible and require acceptance de fide. I wish now to point out that, if the formulae introduced by Benedict XVI did affect this debated theological question, then, surely, so does the action of this Pontificate in removing them. In the gradual accumulation of evidences and precedents which gradually build up an established judgement of the Magisterium, surely phrases which were introduced into rites by one Pontiff and, very soon afterwards, removed by the next, have less auctoritas than established and immemorial formulae which have been used by successive pontiffs for centuries.

See also this blog entry at ccwatershed.

A Reform of the Reform?

The version of Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas: Liturgical Vision vs. Liturgical Visions: Vatican II, Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Sarah
Why I believe that the loss of the sense of the sacred is the primary reason why we have lost millions of Catholics to faithful worship.

Much of it a Latin traditionalist could agree with.

Over and above that, for a universal Church (in an age of high mobility), the ability to worship in a common language is most important. How many of you have gone on a business trip to Tokyo, for example, finding yourself attending Sunday Mass in Japanese (which I presume most of you do not know)?

So why should the Japanese have to suffer through Latin just so that a few tourists and legal residents can benefit from hearing something familiar?

Also, the patriarchate of Rome is not the Universal Church. And there is no reason why the patriarchate of Rome should have just one language, when it has jurisdiction over such a disparate group of ethnic groups and cultures. Latin could be a lingua franca for clerics, or bishops, but all of the faithful?

There should have been a greater move towards inculturation for peoples who did not speak Latin or Latin-derived language/Romance language, and this should have been part of the initial missionary effort. (To the Germanic tribes, for example.) Even if the project to develop a native hieratic language took some time as the local Churches discerned for those gifted with the intellectual ability and calling to undertake such a task, it still should have been a priority prominent in the minds of missionary bishops.

What is the significance of kneeling? It is at one and the same time the posture of humility and adoration. Benedict was fond of quoting St. Augustine who declared: “Let no one receive who has not first adored.” The external sign of kneeling helps to safeguard the sacrality of the action of receiving. Admittedly, the Churches of the East (both Catholic and Orthodox) receive standing, however, so much else in their liturgies emphasizes the transcendent that there is little danger of obscuring that dimension.

One can ask whether in the Latin psyche adoration has been separated from liturgical worship due to the rise of Latin "Eucharistic devotion."

Interesting Marketing?

Ignatius Press: Confessiosn of a Traditional Catholic by Matthew Arnold

The book features an oil lamp (or candle holder) that is typically used in Byzantine temples or homes, especially hanging in front of an icon, but not in Latin temples. Roman Catholics, even traditionalists, prefer their bleached candles, which generally go with their statues. Rarely will they put candles in front of a religious paintings. Though perhaps I may have seen this in Rome, but was the candle for the painting or the altar? So why was this particular image used for book? It was probably the decision of the publisher and not the author. To add a greater sense of ritual or piety or mystique that would be missing with a candle?

Ivan Moody on His Setting of the Akathist Hymn

"A conference on ‘Thomas Byzantinus’: Hope for increased dialogue between East and West"

L'Osservatore Romano