But of course, Montini's reign was the ultimate exercise of aggressive papal hubris. No other pope in history ever dared to produce his own liturgy and ban the Mass of ages--and how many bishops had the courage to stand up to him? Just two that I know of. But then, we've arrived at a place where the pope gets to appoint bishops and to dismiss them. Corrupt? You bet. Sounds like this is the sort of thing that needs reform, no?
This other PT blog isn't what you'd call a haven of free speech, by the way. But then, you know the joke about the liturgist and the terrorist, don't you? Here's one comment the censors didn't allow on their combox:
I certainly have a problem with beatifying Paul VI. I have no idea if the man was (or is) a saint,
how holy he was in his personal life.
But he was one of the worst popes of modern times. This is not a judgment of his character, but
of his competence. Keep in mind, this is
a man who had absolutely no practical pastoral experience, and it showed. The closest Montini, born to a life of
privilege, ever came to serving a parish was when he was exiled to the see of
Milan.
The liturgy is ‘the work of the people.’ No pope has the right or the authority to sweep it away and replace it with a thing
of his own making. This was the ultimate
act of papal arrogance, exceeding even the shameful engineering of the
proclamation of papal infallibility at Vatican I. An act of profound hubris, and in that the
Roman Church, whether through divine providence or an accident of history, has
been the bulwark of Christianity in the west, an act that was profoundly
anti-oecumenical.
It’s disingenuous to pretend that the Mass of Paul VI
represents the mandate of Vatican II and everyone here knows that—such wilful acts
of self-delusion are not becoming to intelligent people. But what’s most disturbing is this totalitarian
view that everyone must march in lockstep.
‘You must worship my way.’ Clearly there’s a vocal minority who are
deeply attached to the Mass of Paul VI (the vast majority of remaining pew-sitters
not giving a toss either way). I admit this
baffles me—surely, given the banality of that rite, their motivation can only be
ideological rather than liturgical or aesthetic?—but I’m content to let them
get on with it. But, appealing to a shibboleth
of ‘unity’, they don’t want to extend the same courtesy to me. Is that what
Vatican II was supposed to be about? (Meet the new boss…)
For all I know Montini was a good man. But he was a dreadful pope.
No comments:
Post a Comment