In Praise Of Monsignor Guido Marini

Grazie, Monsignore!

Grazie, Monsignore!

It is for a conservative Catholic very difficult not to like the person and the work of Monsignor Guido Marini. A true lover of sound liturgy (because remember: Lex Orandi…) , this gentle, unassuming man has beautifully taken care of it for Pope Benedict as his Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, helping him and us to re-discover as much as he (Monsignor Marini)  could of the hidden treasures of our glorious tradition.

I had grown accustomed to see him near the former Pontiff, and to me his familiar, meek (smart-meek, not “kick my backside”-meek) expression was always a silent reassurance that, slow as things were going, they were at least going in the right direction.

I do not envy the good man, who must be living difficult days now. From what transpires to date – and one must say if the new Pontiff has one good side, is that he does not leave anyone in doubt about his intentions – he will have either no liturgical role, or one that we do not wish him, and that would make him suffer. Alas, a cold wind of liturgical wreckovation seems to be blowing within the Vatican walls, and it doesn’t take a genius to imagine our gentle friend will soon find other places where his qualities can be better employed.

Say, if you please, a Hail Mary for this kind man of God, now very probably seeing the demolition – provisional, at least – of years of beautiful work.


Posted on March 15, 2013, in Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.

  1. You echo my thoughts, unfortunately. I would be pleasantly surprised were he not to become one of the first casualties of the “old guard”. But it may be for the best (for him) if he is.

    • As you say, the liturgical climate being what it is, it would be better for him to find another place anyway. I can’t imagine he would have any joy.


  2. His “extra omnes” was embarassing …

  3. “His “extra omnes” was embarrassing… ” and his adjustment of the Holy Father’s stole when it was just fine was an unnecessary intrusion

  4. We must believe that the Holy Spirit led the cardinals to select Francis, therefore we must accept that God is unenthusiastic about Mgr Marini’s liturgical activities. This saddens me but it has to be accepted.

  5. His “extra omnes” was soft spoken and he has a high voice. A commentator on NBC also made fun of it. I thought everything Mgr Marini did during the conclave was perfect, professional, and spiritual, and I’m not convinced that Pope Frances will not rely on him for guidance and support. He has much to offer the Pontiff. -CB

    • ah, well… I wish these were the problems…

      Monsignor Marini hasn’t been sacked.. yet. Every day that passes brings new hope.. 😉 but still I think there’s not much to be hoped, unless the new Pope has the humility to accept that he has to learn in this respect.


  6. Monsignor Marini is does what he does in an orderly and decent way. He also happens to be profoundly pious. I have no doubts but that the Almighty Lord was at work in the election of Papa Benedict. Whether He was involved in the election of Francis remains to be seen. I am an Anglican priest of the Old Rite-1662 BCP, and used Benedict’s books to teach my flock. In them I found nothing offensive or contrary to orthodox Anglicanism. In my opinion the new Papa had better continue the teaching ministry, or all of his outward and visible signs of Franciscan piety, as earnest as they may be, will be for naught. His role is to convert, not to save the world from global poverty or hunger. “The poor always ye have with you, but me ye have not always.” Indeed, we have Him not because we refuse to embrace, cherish, treasure, and grow the seed of his Word in our hearts and souls. Benedict fed us on the everlastingly-begotten Word of God. Should Francis not shut up about politics, and get back to the business of saving souls, you RC’s will be in as much trouble as we fragmented Anglicans are. And that state I would not wish on anyone.

    • I am glad you are satisfied Benedict is orthodox enough for Protestants, standish martin, though I can easily say Ratzinger as theologian – certainly before he became Pope, and at times afterwards – doesn’t pass the test so easily.

      I fully agree with you on the “social activism”, and I think you say it beautifully when you say that his role is to convert, not to save the world from poverty or hunger.

      I must, though, fundamentally disagree concerning the Church and the Anglicans. The Church has the protection of the Holy Ghost and will, being indefectible, never die.

      Anglicanism, like every Protestant community – though some of them, astonishingly, think they are Catholic – is apparently mortally wounded, and unless there is an eleventh hour repentance and return to sanity will surely die. No protection from the Holy Ghost means that people make their theology as they go along. Death is, therefore, only a matter of time.


  7. The last time I read the documents of Vatican II, the Anglicans were demarcated out from “other Protestant bodies”. My spy at the Vatican -an RC Monsignor, has told me that in point of fact Rome has never wholly recovered from having been embarrassed by the response made to the “Apostolicae Curae” of Leo XIII by the then Archbishops of Canterbury and York, which basically showed that if our Orders are null and void, then so are Rome’s, turning, as they did, Leo’s flawed logic back on himself. You are, however, wholly correct in what I think you are saying about the present madness. With the introduction of the “ordination” of Women, the situation has been tainted and corrupted. Those of us in the fragmented Continuum are aware of this, and for this reason we neither acknowledge nor allow the “ordinations” of females. That we are fractured in more ways than one, does, trust me, generate more than a pause for thought. That does not, however, justify inventing weak and pathetic doctrines like Papal “infallibility” to answer a modernity that neither Leo XIII nor his advisors understood. Their prostitution of Thomas’ Philosophy was wholly corrupted, as Rome’s theologians like De Lubac, Mouroux, Chenu, and others rightly pointed out. As Benedict understands, persuasion is the only way to convert. Power corrupts. “Be ye not as the rulers of the Gentiles.” Whether Francis can persuade remains to be seen. But fragmentation, as Eliot pointed out, seems to be in the drinking water. I trust that you are not claiming that your fragment of the Mystical Body is necessarily moved by the Holy Ghost. If you do, then you would appear by be a monophysite…practically applied, of course.

%d bloggers like this: