jump to navigation

Blessed John Paul II loved him some liturgical dance? September 27, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, self-serving, the return.
trackback

That’s what Archbishop Piero Marini, the Papal master of ceremonies for pretty much all of Pope John Paul II’s Masses, is now claiming.  The claim is surely self-serving, and it should be noted that Marini (not to be confused with the current, and much more orthodox, Papal MC, Msgr. Guido Marini) has always been an extreme liturgical revolutionary and someone who has been known to twist history to fit his worldview. But, then again, Pope JPII certainly did allow some hideous liturgies to take place under his watch, something the Benedict XVI-New Marini team took significant steps to undo – thank God. Old Marini has had deep ties to liturgical wreckovation going back to his membership on Bishop Anibale Bugnini’s disastrous “concilium” for the implementation of the new Mass.  Thus, take all the below with a grain of salt, it could be the self-serving reminiscences of a man who has always had some difficulty with the truth, but there could be some valid nuggets within:

Thus, Piero Marini points out that his position as papal master of ceremonies there had allowed him to implement “efficiently”  [“Efficiently” means ruthlessly, brutally, arbitrarily, and without a thought to 1500+ years of Tradition] the guidelines of the Second Vatican Council: “It is the inclusion  [there’s a modernist catch-phrase for you: “inclusion”]  of some elements, at the entrance, the Offertory, which is part of the life of a country, where participants who are guests to the Mass will be instantly familiar. Also in song and sometimes even the dance.” Piero Marini dug deeply for the dances: “John Paul II liked it all, he always wanted to share the customs and traditions “.  [Maybe. But in how many countries is dance really just an absolutely vital part of everyday life?  Even still, inculturation has had the effect of making an instantly understandable, universal, and transcendent Liturgy one that is often completely opaque, local, and immanentist – that is, completely human, with no shade of the transcendent]

“When we were in Brazil,” he had been asked if the dancers of the local ballet school could be involved, “and we had agreed. They are then on two stairways that flanked up the altar. During the dance, a wind arose and their light dresses had stuck to their bodies. Some prelates expressed their disapproval. They had not heard Pope John Paul II. I was the only one beside him and as he softly said, ‘Beautiful, beautiful.’ He looked at the essence.” He continued: “During seminary they taught us to kill the body, but we save ourselves with the body. ”  [This is an amazing problematic statement, but one a modernist would make. I pray Pope JPII did not make the statement Old Marini is attributing to him]

Piero Marini also tells an episode that is directed against the then President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Camillo Ruini. He had disapproved of it, that in the Youth Liturgy some teenagers were introduced that moved their arms during the celebration. The Cardinal had expressed his disapproval to the Pope directly: “Even in this case John Paul II made it understood that their presence did not bother him…….”

…….Piero Marini: “The Eucharist originated in homes, for a small group of people. Jesus put it in the midst of the twelve Apostles, then the breaking of the bread took place in the first years of Christianity in small communities in houses. Certainly not in front of millions of people. It was inevitable that it happened, and we had to adapt, because the situation demanded it.”

————–End Quote—————–

I included that last bit, because both Fr. Nicholas Gihr, who I have been quoting a great deal lately, and the father of true liturgical reform, Dom Prosper Gueranger, noted that liturgical revolutionaries and those gone over to the anti-liturgical heresy ALWAYS posit there was some time, very early in the Church, of “pristine” Christian worship, without all the trappings of the Mass, with the vernacular used, without all the mystery and transcendence, etc.  In short, they fantasize an early liturgy that is exactly what they want their liturgy – which often serves various heretical ends – to be.  Suffice it to say, we don’t have a great deal of concrete evidence for how the Mass was offered early in the Church, but we do know that it was changed for numerous very good reasons, very Spirit-inspired reasons, into something more regal, august, and mysterious as soon as the Church was out from under the thumb of horrid persecution.

Men like Marini do not like the traditional form of the Mass very much because that very form of the Mass is so opposed to their theological ideals.  The TLM speaks constantly of sin, atonement, confession, repentence, redemption, hell, Heaven, salvation, good works, true charity, etc., etc – the whole panoply of “negative ecclesiology” the post-VII revolutionaries have spent decades trying to expirtate from the Church.  Which expirtation, as far as it has been successful, has only managed to drive millions of souls into the depths of sin and out of the practice of the Faith.  The “primitive liturgical ideal” isn’t even a new concept – it dates back to 4th century gnostics and 12th century Albigensians.  The Church, for centuries, was wise enough to say “No, the Mass is what it is for very good reasons, reasons very pleasing to God, and to change it would be to threaten the very heart of the Church’s salvific mission.”  But, somehow, that smoke of satan entered the Church, and men like Marini got hold of the levers of power.  The result has been catastrophe on a scale that beggars the imagination.

But what do I know?  I’m sure “Anita Lay” Shea will come by and leave dorky caricatures of my “conservative” concerns, reminding us all how we must be totally obedient to every utterance or thought of every bishop, no matter how wild eyed or destructive they are.

Comments

1. Vincent - September 28, 2013

In another vein, the promotion of the Theology of the Body always sounded strange to me in that I equate theology to mean the study of God and his revelation. The Church has her teaching on human sexuality but “theology of the body” reeks of neo-paganism. Now, a new one has come along, theology of women.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: