Shawn Tribe's must read article

Someone might say, "but if that happens, aren't we supposed to look to the papal liturgies as models to follow?" I'd point out here an important distinction. We aren't liturgical positivists whereby whatever a pope, any pope, does liturgically must be followed or seen as the exemplar. Pope Benedict's liturgies were indeed identified as exemplars in the recent past but that was not because it was the pope's liturgy that it was an exemplar; rather it was an exemplar because they were liturgies celebrated according to sound liturgical principles. It is the principles that matter and we should keep that always closely in mind.

But back to our scenario, even if that is what is happening (which we don't yet know I'd continue to stress), what would that mean? This brings me to the crux of what I really want to say, which is in reality entirely separate from the questions people are asking me, having nothing whatever to do with this pope or any other.

I have said over the years that I believe Benedict XVI understood this point about the need not simply for legislation, but rather for a renewed liturgical formation and a change in liturgical culture; for there to be lasting effects you first need to change hearts and minds. Benedict knew of this cultural issue only too well (and no doubt perceived the very potentiality which we are discussing here now) and that is precisely why he sowed the particular seeds that he did I think; seeds which were planted by his liturgical teaching, his liturgical example, and by the liturgical doors he opened (such as with the Ordinariate and Summorum Pontificum for example). Doors which remain open I'd remind people -- and which really aren't that easy to close pastorally speaking.

Benedict, while the "father of the new liturgical movement" (in my estimation at any rate), is not the new liturgical movement; as such the new liturgical movement does not die with the end of his papacy. 

The whole article by Shawn Tribe at NLM

Photo