Rorate Caeli

"Springtime" or rupture? D. of Phoenix may weigh in


Is there actually an American diocese willing to look beyond the so-called "reform of the reform" to what should rightly been seen as rupture?

The Diocese of Phoenix is holding a Conference on the 1965 Rite. Bishops Olmsted, Cordileone (of Oakland) and Elliot (Auxiliary in Melbourne Australia) will be there, along with some "conservative" liturgists.

It is not a Tridentine Conference but, according to a well-known traditional priest and friend of Rorate, it is his understanding that the underlying message of the conference is that the 1965 Rite was supposed to have been the end of the reform. In other words: a future New Rite was not intended by the bishops in 1963, the reform was dutifully implemented by 1965 - and ulterior developments were, ultimately, a rupture with tradition.

Our priest source also believes this is not a "reform of the reform" conference either. The reform of the reform assumes that the Novus Ordo is the direction, but it just needs to reigned in a bit. This conference, he believes, is very quietly suggesting that the Novus Ordo should not have been.

If true, this could turn out to be a remarkable event, and we will grant any of our readers who attend the event the ability to post a report on this blog. Just send us your report at athanasiuscatholic@yahoo.com

Also interesting will be, if this gets enough pre-conference press, will it be shut down before it ever takes place ...


And please remember to follow @RorateCaeli on Twitter.

30 comments:

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Could it possibly be along the lines of what Bishop Athanasius Schneider was getting at?

Anonymous said...

And to think trads were the lunatic fringe these past forty years.

Gregorio said...

1965 didn't have any expanded lectionary or additional Old Testament readings, did it? If not, then it is quite obviously *not* the anticipated end of the reform as the Council foresaw it.

Anonymous said...

As Kramer would say... Giddy Up!

Gratias said...

A welcome discussion. The New Order main weakness is its foundation on non-pastoral VC2.

Then came Archbishop Bugnini, the alleged Freemason, and together with Protestants and1960's Socialists wrote the New Order out of thin air. Thus the Catholic Church spearheaded the Spirit of the Sixties.

I hope Athanasius' spies tell us what kind of liturgy was offered at this conference. If it is the New Order then we have a problem.

Bugnini took participatio activa and on this based the unbuliding of the Mother Church with the imprimatur of Paul VI.

RR said...

"The reform of the reform assumes that the Novus Ordo is the direction, but it just needs to reigned in a bit."

Er, not necessarily. To say that is actually to minimize the reform of the reform. It cannot be so easily pigeon-holed.

Some might indeed believe that, but that is somewhat of a minimialist approach to it (and I think you could even argue it is somewhat of a modification of it). In its origins you will find it goes much deeper and indeed, the 1965 Missal was there as a consideration early on.

I remember in all the early talk about the reform of the reform, the 1965 Missal was constantly held up and the thought was that the Pauline Missal was not in alignment with the Council and Council fathers.

Gratias said...

Thanks be to bishops Olmsted, Cordeleone and Elliot. They are all included in the list of the 239 bishops of the Catholic Church that have actually offered the forma extraordinaria mass. This is a very interesting list to read, you can find it by scrolling down in UV Malaga/Accionliturgica link on the sidebar. It makes you proud of the American Church.

Adfero said...

"Er, not necessarily. To say that is actually to minimize the reform of the reform. It cannot be so easily pigeon-holed. "

Yes, it is to minimize it. And, yes, it can be so easily pigeon-holed.

Anonymous said...

I think Gregorio is correct. This was not a great unintentional misunderstanding. It was an intentional understanding that was fundmentally different.

Anonymous said...

This makes me giggle..sort of. "Oops, turns out it was a rupture (mistake) and shouldn't have happened, sorry."

I'll have plenty of time to ponder this on my hundred mile round trip journey to the FSSP chapel on Sunday.

Anonymous said...

Having the 1965 Interim Missal once again as the "new" Novus Ordo for those who prefer the vernacular while maintaining some Latin would certainly look pretty much in continuity with the 62 Missal. WHy not have the more somber, formal and reverant 62 Missal as our principal Mass honoring it for its' proven Holiness and the 65 Interim Missal alongside for those who want a more modern, slightly modified version which is what Vat II asked for? OK, tweak the lectionary of the 65 Missal if you must. And then retire the Pauline Missal we have been using peacefully. The 62 and 65 Missals are certainly when looking through lens of continuity, a much better match.

Anonymous said...

"The reform of the reform assumes that the Novus Ordo is the direction, but it just needs to reigned in a bit.

This conference, he believes, is very quietly suggesting that the Novus Ordo should not have been."

Ooookay. Now, here's what Pope Benedict XVI believes:

"Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite..."

Bye, bye '65.

dcs said...

Vatican II was a lie, is a lie, and always will be a lie. It has not the Holy Spirit in it, only the Spirit of the Wotld. Know it by its fruits. They are undeniable.

The traditionalist movement is a fruit of the Council.

Hans Coessens said...

Ite, Aggiornamento.

Igumen Gregory said...

Too bad they don't do with Bugnini what was done to Origen, to wit declare him a heretic (Mason) post mortem and undo the miserable work that he did. Wishful thinking, I know.

Anonymous said...

Igumen,

The "wycliffe treatment" might be more appropriate for Bugnini. Exhume his remains, declare him a heretic, and burn the remains, casting the ashes into some river.

Giovanni A. Cattaneo said...

Now hold on, lets be fair to Origen. It was his followers that went all nutty, he him self always and I mean always in all his writings declared that had he made any errors the Church was more than suitable to correct him.

Woody said...

I note also a talk by Fr. Christopher Phillips on the Book of Divine Worship.

Gratias said...

We are fortunate to have a 1965 Latin-Spanish missal. The new mass there is very similar to the TLM. No rupture at all in 1965 in the first fruit of J23 and P6 Aggiornamento.

I was surprised to see so much affection in these pages for Pope John XXIII, who is responsible for opening the doors for the tragedy that followed.

Anonymous said...

I don't mind that that the Novus Ordo goes back to 1965 but i hope they don't want the 1962 to go there too.

Henry said...

"1965 didn't have any expanded lectionary or additional Old Testament readings, did it? If not, then it is quite obviously *not* the anticipated end of the reform as the Council foresaw it."

This is precisely (and only) what was "interim" about it -- with the revision of the rite itself having been completed, it remained only to expand the lectionary, an essential independent task.

Anyone who was there in 1965--as I was--knows that the bishops themselves, not long home from the Council where they had voted--understood 1965 to be the definitive revision intended by the Council. This was stated plainly and unambiguously in most of the published versions.

It might help if people could calibrate their remarks as to whether they are based on actual knowledge dating from 1965, or are merely hypothetical speculations not based on personal knowledge.

John L said...

The conference will be a good idea, provided that it includes criticism of the 1965 missal and discussion of the claim that the changes of 1965 were a bad idea, rather than simply advancing the line that 1965 was great and we should have had that rather than 1970. If it is the latter line that the conference pushes, it will not be constructive. I'm not claiming that the pro-1965 idea cannot be argued for; I'm just saying that that line is open to objection and has to subjected to scrutiny - scrutiny that examines the underlying assumption of the desirability of 'reform' in the liturgy, and the liturgical movement generally that accepted this assumption.

Anonymous said...

Henry’s comments are the best so far, with most commenters missing the point of the posting. 1965 was the “mass of Vatican II,” not what happened in 1969. There are several proofs of this:

First, (correct me if I am wrong), in its original Latin Inter Oecumenici (September 26, 1964), which essentially creates the 1965 ordo missae merely states it is the “Instruction on implementing liturgical norms,” not “[The] First Instruction on implementing liturgical norm.” In other words, it was presented as no further changes to be expected except the reform of the lectionary, the calendar, and the breviary.

Second, read again Klaus Gamber’s book the Reform of the Roman Liturgy for his comments. He too, argues that 1965was meant to be the mass of Vatican II.

Third, look at the contemporary evidence – books by Sloyan (Worship in a New Key -1965), McNaspy (Our Changing Liturgy-1966), Jean-Nesmy (Living the Liturgy - 1966) act as if the new mass is that of 1965. Also, look at the St. Joseph’s Missal and the Maryknoll Missal (Vatican II edtion) of 1966 - there is an implied presumption that this is the new mass.

Fourth, look at all the new missals published in 1966 again, it would appear as everyone thought this was the mass of the Council.

Fifth, look at how Archbishop Lefebvre viewed it – he said the 1965 mass, and while disturbed, was not galvanised into action until at least 1968, after the issuance of the new Eucharistic prayers.

There is more than this, but I believe the weight of historic evidence would lend credence to the belief that the 1965 missal was intended to be the mass of Vatican II.

James Ignatius McAuley

Anonymous said...

In case anyone is still reading this: It is an anachronism to call the 1965 missal an interim missal. This terminology was adopted after the fact. 1965 was not called an interim missal when it came out – look at the 1965 Missals published in 1966 by Benziger, Catholic Book Publishing and Liturgical Press – there is nothing in them to lead one to believe that all this money, ink, paper, and time is being wasted on a mere interim missal.

Another book example is Alfred McBrides’s Homiles for the New Liturgy – this came out in 1965. And, what is the new liturgy? The 1965 missal.

It can be argued that the 1965 liturgy is an organic development and that it is still essentially the traditional liturgy, unlike what came out in 1969. Look at the contemporary evidence -- it was not 1965 that caused people to gravitate towards what we now call tradition, but what happened in 1969-1970. Yes, people like Waugh were upset, and Una Voce can trace its roots to this time (1965), but the catalyst for tradition is the advent of the ordinary form in 1969.

James Ignatius McAuley

picard said...

Very good and thanks, Mc Auley!

Anonymous said...

The 1965 missal doesn't resurrect good memories for me - that was the year "Holy God We Praise Thy Name" went out the window and "Michael Row Your Boat Ashore" came in, and we started giving the responses from the pews. In other words, with the 1965 missal came the beginning of the end.

It was a rapid descent.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Delphina,

I do not think the 1965 missal, in of itself caused the liturgical destabilization that exploded in 1966. 1966 was a pivotal year in the acceleration of liturgical abuses, in the name of "experimentation" sometimes authorized by the local Bishop or the Buggnini, sometimes (and more than not as time went on) unauthorized. It was this irresponsible and scandalous, and sometimes sacraligeous "experimentation" that was the prime cause of the problems. Today, this is called liturgical abuse. In many cases, people never saw the 1965 liturgy, but something else.

What was worse is that no one seem to take into account the fact that this "experimentation" would be a deadly corrosive to the spiritual well being of the faithful. Add into this volatile mix the constant liturgical changes in the mass in 1967, 1968, and 1969, the revolt in many seminaries, as well as the simultaneous attacks on devotional Catholicism of that time period. Many people were upset and disturbed by this, as evidenced by reviewing contemporary issues of the Remnant, the Wanderer, and Triumph.

It was in this liturgically destabilized atmosphere that Archbishop Lefebvre rose up and in this context he needs to be understood. Lefebvre understood the anthropological issue better than many people give him credit for - that if you destabilize the liturgy and discredit the traditional devotions, the end result will be that the scandalized and/or confused sheep will be inclined to wander away from the sheepfold of Christ.

More historical research is needed to examine this period, 1963-1971. James Hitchcock' Recovery of the Sacred is the one of the few books I know of that deals with this pivotal time period. I look forward to Alcuin Reid's forthcoming book on this time period, as it should help answer some questions.

James Ignatius McAuley

Anonymous said...

"More historical research is needed to examine this period, 1963-1971."

Yes, well, they had better hurry if they want to get first-hand accounts from those of us who lived through it. We aren't getting any younger.

On second thought, what is there to examine and research? It is quite simple, and there is no need to complicate matters. Just call a spade a spade, and admit the fact that Vatican II was a failure primarily because it was hijacked by men with an agenda who thought they knew better and wanted to form the Church into their own image and likeness.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

They can debate this all they like. Where the rubber meets the road is in Europe where we can expect a war soon and great chastisement for France, Italy, England and all the countries. This will make the Vatican II debate completely forgotten as the Church is automatically reborn and reset through the blood of martyrs.

These are not my words or thoughts but rather those of dozens and dozens of saints.

dom guzmán said...

The Novus Ordo wasn't composed out of thin air, it was based on Lambert Beauduin's (OSB) co-opting of the Liturgical Movement and the association with heterodox bishops and priests.
An excellent treatment of the development of NewMass is givem by Fr. Didier Bonneterre SSPX in The Liturgical Movement, Angelus Press, 2002. There's really no need for further study.