Rorate Caeli

Brandmüller: the Mass of Paul VI IS NOT the Mass of the Council
Sacrosanctum Concilium never really implemented

From an interview granted by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller to Vatican Insider and published today. The last answer, on the liturgical revolution that should never have happened and destroyed the organic evolution of sacred worship, is particularly relevant.


The Second Vatican Council was a Pastoral Council that also provided dogmatic explanations. Had there ever been anything like it previously in the history of the Church? 
[Brandmüller:] It does in fact seem as though Vatican II marked the beginning of a new type of Council. The language that was used during it and the completeness of the texts show that the Council fathers was not as much motivated by the need to pass judgement on controversial new ecclesiastical and theological issues, but rather by the wish to turn their attention to public opinion within the Church and the entire world, in the spirit of the annunciation.


Shouldn’t a Council be declared a failure if fifty years on it has not been warmly received by the faithful? Benedict XVI warned against a misleading interpretation of the Council, particularly in terms of the hermeneutics of [rupture]…
[B:]This is one of those cliché questions that stem from a new existential sentiment; that feeling of confusion that is typical of our times. But what is fifty years after all?! Cast your mind back to the Council of Nicaea in 325. The disputes surrounding the dogma of this Council - about the nature of the Son, that is, whether he was made of the same substance as the Father or not - continued for more than a hundred years. St. Ambrose was ordained Bishop of Milan on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and had to fight hard against the Arians who refused to accept the Nicene provisions. Briefly afterwards came a new Council: the First Council of Constantinople of 381 which was deemed necessary in order to complete the profession of the faith at Nicaea. During this Council, St. Augustine was given the task of dealing with requests and fighting back heretics until his death in 430. Frankly, even the Council of Trent was not very fruitful until the Golden Jubilee of 1596. It took a new generation of Bishops and prelates to mature in the “spirit of the Council” before its effect could really be felt. We need to allow ourselves a little more breathing space.


Let us talk now about the fruits which the Vatican II produced. Can you comment on this?
[B:] First of all of course the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” in comparison with the Tridentine Catechism: after the Council of Trent, the Catechismus Romanus was launched in order to provide parish priests, preachers etcetera with guidelines on how to preach and announce the Gospel or evangelize.

Even the 1983 Code of Canon Law can be considered a consequence of the Council. I must emphasise that the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II which by the way has not really been implemented even to this day. The indiscriminate removal of Latin and Gregorian Chants from liturgical celebrations and the erection of numerous altars were absolutely not acts prescribed by the Council.

With the benefit of hindsight, let us cast our minds back in particular to the lack of sensitivity shown in terms of care for the faithful and in the pastoral carelessness shown in the liturgical form. One need only think of the Church’s excesses, reminiscent of the [Iconoclastic crisis] which occurred in the [8th] century. Excesses which catapulted numerous faithful into total chaos, leaving many fumbling around in the dark.

Just about anything and everything has been said on this subject. Meanwhile, the liturgy has come to be seen as a mirror image of Church life, subject to an organic historical evolution which cannot - as did indeed happen - suddenly be changed by decree par ordre de mufti. And we are still paying the price today. [Source, adapted]

45 comments:

CredoUtIntelligam said...

This is all sound and fury. Sacrosanctum Concilium was "really" implemented. The Novus Ordo is the result of (1) well documented loopholes or "time bombs" in the document itself; (2)acts of the official commission given authority for implementing liturgical changes; (3) whose acts were approved by Pope Paul VI.

This is all well documented in Fr. Cekada's book The Work of Human Hands, which does not discuss or advocate another thesis for which Fr. Cekada is well known.

It is true that the Novus Ordo contradicts the "original intent" of the majority of the Council Fathers who signed Sacrosanctum Concilium. So what? That is ancient history. The Novus Ordo was "really" implemented by the proper authorities. What is anybody going to do about it? Nothing.

GMMF said...

I think the mode of teaching of the Council, instead of passing a definitive judgment or strictly legislating (like most past Council did one or both of) reflected the papal magisterium's style preceding it. The Popes of Rome used to generally only intervene to provide a definitive judgment on a controversy, but later began writing long, explanatory treatises to the whole Church on a regular basis, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Council follows this pattern with its own long explanatory treatises.

Whats Up! said...

The Council and particularly Sacrosanctum Concilium,
the "All things being equal" document
has been implemented.

This is why the liturgical problem is a worldwide epidemic.
It sprang from a general council.

To blame it on "Concilium" is the same as blaming cosa-nostra gunmen for being the final authority on their hits.

sam said...

The VII Church's schizophrenia continues to obfuscate the radiance of the Mystical Bride of Christ in the world.

The VII Church needs to be brought back to Tradition, so that its Evangelisation mission to the world may illuminate further and deeper the heart of men. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Kenneth J. Wolfe said...

If I had a dollar for every priest, bishop and cardinal who has complained about the novus ordo's vernacular, altar girls, communion in the hand, sappy music and liturgical direction toward the people -- yet continues to opt to use all of these things on a daily basis -- I could subsidize every FSSP seminarian's tuition.

Words are good. Actions are better.

Just say no to all of this stuff instead of merely complaining about it. Any priest, bishop or cardinal (or pope) can reject the "it's not time yet" mentality and say no to all of these novelities beginning today.

Red said...

I agree with the first poster. To suggest that the Pope who presided over V2 didn't know how to implement is a bit of a stretch. It must also be noted that V2 certainly DID allow the wholesale obliteration of latin to whatever degree the Bishop's think necessary - and evidently they thought it very necessary.

I also think the first question was a loaded one: V2 was a pastoral council that had dogmatic explanations?! That's a new one to me.

Unimpressed said...

This blows his thesis out of the water:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/20120831-davies-reform-of-the-reform.htm

The Novus Ordo very much flows from Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Beefy Levinson said...

I've always found the "Good council, bad implementation" trope to be deeply dissatisfying. If the Pauline Missal is not what the council intended, then why was it promulgated? Did Pope Paul VI not understand the council he presided over? If the council fathers didn't intend the chaos of the post-conciliar Church, then why were so many of them passive spectators when they weren't actively encouraging it?

David of Glasgow said...

Just a few more years...or decades...or centuries and we'll start seeing those fruits a-bursting out everywhere!

Seraph said...

There is going to have to be a time when the Church will have to simply move beyond Sacrosanctum Concilium and just forget it and leave it behind.

The Pope can bring out his own motu proprio on the liturgy for a genuine organic development. He can also bring out his own Missal to abrogate Paul VI and fix the mess.

NIANTIC said...

By their fruits you shall know them.....Not only do we have to read the documents of that Vll Council carefully and critically in light of Tradition as well as to ambiguity and loopholes. We also have to look at the fruits i.e. the "spirit" and the type persons who implemented the guidelines, suggestions and ideas.
A massive change has occurred in the way the Church since Vll prays and believes. Another massive change was the wholesale exodus of priests, religious and laity and loss of faith. Another massive change was the almost pure hatred and persecution of those, clergy and laity, who wished to fight for and preserve the Traditional Mass and all the Sacraments in the Traditional form.

All in all there has NOT occurred the vaunted "springtime" and all the other many wonderful things promised by the "deluded" powers that be. Neither will this happen in another 50 years. Rather than facing up to the truth and being honest they are busy planning great festivities.....I have said before I will be busy watching the football games. Can't wait. Pax et bonum to all!

Big Daddy said...

If "...the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II..." then the entire post-conciliar Church -- minus the FSSPX and a few strap-hangers -- is guilty, at a minimum, of wilfull negligence.

Amicus1962 said...

Your emminence, if the Mass of Paul VI was not the Mass of the Council, what IS the Mass of the Council?

Jason C. said...

I must emphasise that the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II which by the way has not really been implemented even to this day.

I read this a couple of ways, could just be a translation thing. Is he saying:
(1) Sacrosanctum Concilium is not to blame for the "the form of the post-conciliar liturgy," i.e., the Mass called for by SC is not the Novus Ordo, because of the fact that this "form" comes with "with ... distortions"; or
(2) SC is not to blame for the Novus Ordo "with all its distortions," i.e., SC called for something like the Novus Ordo, which we got, but did not call for all the distortions we see in its celebration.

Those are pretty different statements. Again, I don't know enough about the Cardinal or what he said originally to be able to tell. Just offering my interpretations of his eminence's words.

Francis said...

Kenneth, well said. Unlike many of us who are not clergy, bishops etc. these people actually have the authority to change the conciliar mess of the last fifty years. They won't do it IMHO because it's easier for them to complain and make excuses than to actually fix the mess that many of them actually created in the first place and still adhere to. It is easier for them to continue the conciliar novelties that appease the world, including members of heretical sects and false religions who have power inside the post-conciliar Church. Sadly, acting and complaining like they want to restore Catholic orthodoxy and tradition is easier than actually doing it for many of them for the reason that I've mentoioned above.

John Kearney said...

The fact that the Mass was passed in the vernacular certainly contradicted the wishes of the Fathers as seen in the idea that Gregorian Chant should have pride of place and Sacrosanctum Concilium 54 in no way conveys that Latin is now ended. Why was it implemented. The answer is that the Vatican was full of Modernists. Having changed the language they began to change the Mass to an ecumenical flavour. Catholics were an embarrassment kneeling for Communion so stop them by remving the altar rails. Catholics were an embarrassment by genurlecting so let us move the Blessed Sacrament and indeed let us challenge Catholic Teaching on the Real Presence. Let us diminish the idea of Sacrifice and make the Mass more people orientated, a gathering of praise and worship. Let us invent the idea there was 600 years when early Christians received on the hand and so were `more adult and mature` whatever that may mean. And what are we going to do about it? Expose the lies and bring back truth and honesty to the Church.

John Kearney said...

The fact that the Mass was passed in the vernacular certainly contradicted the wishes of the Fathers as seen in the idea that Gregorian Chant should have pride of place and Sacrosanctum Concilium 54 in no way conveys that Latin is now ended. Why was it implemented. The answer is that the Vatican was full of Modernists. Having changed the language they began to change the Mass to an ecumenical flavour. Catholics were an embarrassment kneeling for Communion so stop them by remving the altar rails. Catholics were an embarrassment by genurlecting so let us move the Blessed Sacrament and indeed let us challenge Catholic Teaching on the Real Presence. Let us diminish the idea of Sacrifice and make the Mass more people orientated, a gathering of praise and worship. Let us invent the idea there was 600 years when early Christians received on the hand and so were `more adult and mature` whatever that may mean. And what are we going to do about it? Expose the lies and bring back truth and honesty to the Church.

Dino said...

In the name of "mutual enrichment," the next novelty will be a hybrid mass. We must refuse ever to support it in any way.

LeonG said...

I have written many times on this topic - if you care to read the details and the accounts of what was said and proposed you can only come to one conclusion. The liberal modernists at the Council set out what they wanted in a new liturgical form. Experiments were already going on in France and Germany, some with episcopal connivance. The Councils paved the way for Bugnini's liturgical opus and Pope Paul VI duly obliged notwithstanding the bad news he had found out his liturgical expert.
To claim otherwise is disingenuous, frankly speaking.

jack p said...

Pope Paulus VI in 1972: Da queste opposte tensioni deriva uno stato di disagio, che non possiamo e non dobbiamo nasconderci : anzitutto una falsa e abusiva interpretazione del Concilio, che vorrebbe una rottura con la tradizione, anche dott
rinale, giungendo al ripudio della Chiesa pre-conciliare, e alla licenza di concepire una Chiesa « nuova )), quasi « rein ventata » dall'interno, nella costituzione, nel dogma, nel costume, nel diritto.
These words can be found in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) jaargang 64 [1972], pag. 498.

Romanitas said...

I tend to agree with most of the commenters here. I imagine His Emminence's comments will fuel those who are quasi-traditional men of our times, the Fr. Z and New Liturgical Movement crowd, who prefer most of the prayers and aesthetics of the old Mass, import them to the Novus Ordo, but still support the Novus Ordo and Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Perhaps the views of these men, who are here often called "conservative" rather than traditional, would have some merit if the liturgical constitution from the Council was read objectively instead of in the context of its time and what followed it. The Constitution called for more readings, vernacular readings, a general preservation of Latin and chant, and other novel features to engage the masses. This often leads people to suggest a return to the changes issued in 1964 and codified in the 1965 typical edition. In context, though, one sees that this is a transitional Missal. In 1962 we have a Mass entirely in Latin, celebrated and presided by ordained ministers only. In 1965 we have huge chunks of vernacular, devotional prayers gone, laity doing readings, popular hymns rather than propers, and that strange Eucharistic exchange ("Body of Christ"... "Amen"), and in most cases, Mass facing the people. In 1967 we have the 1965 Mass entirely vernacularized and facing the populace. In 1969 we have the 1967 Mass with a few news Canons, a new Sacramentary system (Collects etc), and new daily readings. Not a very stable system.

Even if some other God-foresaken committee of liturgical "exerts" sneezes out another variation of the old rite—and do not be shocked if they do, with the old structure of Mass, ordinary and Canon in Latin, readings and propers in vernacular, and that crazy new lectionary, we still ought to resist it. Why? It is not a direct descendent of Tradition, just a partial integration.

Perhaps I am being a bit tangential, but I guess I just want to ask His Emminence, what is the "true" nature of the Council's liturgical constitution? What you say it means or what history says it did?

On another note, someone suggested that in the early(ish) days of the Church (first 6 centuries or so) there was no Communion in the hand. This is not historically accurate; there was Communion in the hand, but totally unlike how it is done today. The people would ritually wash their hands before the Mass (in the 9th century there was a fountain outside St Peter's Basilica in Rome for this practice), and be given Communion from the priest, who would place it on a long cloth (the housling cloth in the Sarum and other Gallican rites/uses descend from this), under which the communicant would have his/her right hand; the communicant, not daring to manipulate or move the Sacred Species, would then bow down to his/her hand and consume the Sacrament. There were two reasons this method of communicating died: 1-it was very time consuming compared to communion on the tongue and 2-lots of particles were lost in the cloth. If the poster meant that there was no DIRECT reception of Communion into the naked hand, he/she would be accurate. Either way, your average Novus Ordo attendee wuld feel quite out of place at a 5th century Mass.

Anil Wang said...

Red said "To suggest that the Pope who presided over V2 didn't know how..."

It's important to recognize two things:

(1) The backlash of Humanae Vitae made Pope Paul VI gun shy. He did not release another encyclical afterwords and tried to stay out of the public eye.

(2) Most of the NO abuses that were currently approved such as communion in the hand, altar girls, EMC being the default even if there were enough priests, ad populum being the default, etc actually started out as defiance by a particular Episcopal conference that the Pope(s) caved on rather than risk a schism. None of this is called for by the documents of VII and often these documents contradicted what VII actually asked for.

(3) The Church was under brutal assault (seminaries, Catholic Schools, the sex revolution, Protestant envy, feminist nuns, seamless garment religious, liberation theology priests, priests who were already experimenting with TLM including rock liturgies, folk song liturgies, and green liturgies). Also Bishops were overconfident (US Protestants finally accepting a Catholic President, the 1960s culture of excessive optimism, the belief that the Church will be unaffected by the devastation surrounding it). The combination was a recipe for disaster.

(4) Outright disobedience to the Pope, even to Pope Benedict XVI (see the lack of implementation of SP and UE in many diocese).

All these things combined to give us what we had today. I firmly believe that if the NO never happened, the the craziness that happened would still be with us except that it would have happened in TLM (see Elvis Presley's "Change of Habit" for an example that predated the NO). TLM would be irredeemably corrupted. IMO, existence of the NO preserved TLM and allowed it to be appreciated far more than it would have been.

But regardless, the Cardinal's word stand. The 1965 missal and even the 1967 missal was much closer to the Council's intent than the NO, especially the NO as is commonly practiced today.

Alsaticus said...

Some cardinals can burst open ... open doors.

Every body who has once read the Conciliar constitution has noticed the discrepancy with N.O.M (ordinary Form).

Thanks for cardinal Brandmüller to realise that. Now the real question is when is the CDW going to ACT on that ?

Who is thinking here that is why Bp Roche has been appointed by His Holiness ?

Alsaticus

Credo said...

The Novus Ordo Mass is more the result of an active chastisement from God, than any Council document or personality. Sister Lucia of Fatima told Father Fuentes in 1957, "God is about to chastise the world in a terrible manner. The punishment from Heaven is imminent."

Prof. Basto said...

Well, it is true that the Novus Ordo Missae was in essence rejected by the Synod of Bishops in 1967, but that Synod had merely advisory powers.

Of course, the Constitution on the Liturgy can be read in a multidude different of ways, and on that point the Council Fathers themselves were at fault; they shouldn't have approved a text so prone to different interpretations.

But that ambiguity is the problem with the entire body of work promulgated during Vatican II.

A Council that was so careless that its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church had to be modified by means of an explanatory appendix, that ammounts to Papal Approval "iuxta modum". They should have re-written it, but they were too careless to do that.

And, in the Liturgy field, the Council having given an abiguous mandate for reform, the Holy See decided to embark in a program of total liturgical revolution.

One cannot really say that the Holy See lacked the authority to interpret and implement the Council; the Holy See was and is THE authority, given that the Roman Pontiff acting on his own is as much the Supreme Authority of the Church as an Ecumenical Council acting with the necessary papal endorsement.

The problem here is that the Liturgy is a pastoral field, and in that field the Holy See is not as protected from error as in the doctrinal/theological field, and then, the Holy See also being in the 60's already infested by liberals, it just commited a major mistake, a griveous fault, in approving the Novus Ordo as it did.

The insensitivity towards the faithful was real, the arrogance was real, the carelessness of the whole process also, the contempt for the Sacred Rites of old was real. The Tridentine Mass was banished as a disease. Traditionalists were treated as lepers. Popular piety was ridiculed. Catholic worship was protestantized.

The liturgical reform was a great profanation of the Sacred, and, as we ponder about it, we realize the Holy See too can screw things up, at least in pastoral, non doctrinal matters. We were just not ready for it.

We witnessed, in our 20th century, the biggest mistake the Holy See ever made in History.

And, as Catholics, we are not ready to recognize that the ecclesiastical infallibity is limited to certain fields, but not to the whole administration of religious affairs. Or, more precisely, we were not ready to witness such a big mistake on the part of the Most Holy institution that exists on the face of this Earth.

But it is good to see Cardinals recognizing that the Novus Ordo is not worthy even of the Council, and much less worthy of the Church. The Novus Ordo is valid and licit, but barely sufficient as a Liturgy. Barely sufficient for the worship of God, and insufficient for the proper edification of the faithful.

Replacement and total abrogation of the Mass of Paul VI are urgent.

Logico said...

Here's an excellent refutation of Brandmüller's assertions:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0831-dupuy-fifty-years-is-nothing.htm

Anthony said...

The Cardinal may wish to read the following Apostolic Letter, which declared that the Novus Ordo is in perfect comformity with Sacrosanctum Concilium:

APOSTOLIC LETTER VICESIMUS QUINTUS ANNUS OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II

December 4, 1988:

"The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and selfless work of a large number of experts and bishops from all parts of the world.

"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development; and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with "the ancient usage of the holy Fathers".

"Given that the Liturgy is the school of the prayer of the Church, it has been considered good to introduce and develop the use of the vernacular – without diminishing the use of Latin, retained by the Council for the Latin Rite – so that every individual can understand and proclaim in his or her mother tongue the wonders of God (cf Acts 2:11).

"It has likewise been considered good to increase the number of Prefaces and Eucharistic Prayers, so as to enrich the Church’s treasury of prayer and an understanding of the mystery of Christ.

"...the vast majority of the pastors and the Christian people have accepted the liturgical reform in a spirit of obedience and indeed joyful fervour.

"For this we should give thanks to God for that movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church which the liturgical renewal represents;

"for the fact that the table of the word of God is now abundantly furnished for all;

"for the immense effort undertaken throughout the world to provide the Christian people with translations of the Bible, the Missal and other liturgical books;

"for the increased participation of the faithful by prayer and song, gesture and silence, in the Eucharist and the other sacraments; for the ministries exercised by lay people and the responsibilities that they have assumed in virtue of the common priesthood into which they have been initiated through Baptism and Confirmation;

"for the radiant vitality of so many Christian communities, a vitality drawn from the wellspring of the Liturgy.

"...the liturgical renewal is the most visible fruit of the whole work of the Council".

"For many people the message of the Second Vatican Council has been experienced principally through the liturgical reform."

Anthony

Anthony said...

Pope Paul VI insisted that the New Rite, which he termed a "novelty" and "liturgical innovation," was in perfect conformity with the Council's liturgical teachings.

CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE
Pope Paul VI

Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

"We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass.

"A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries.

"We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits.

"This novelty is no small thing.

"As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change.

"The first is obedience to the Council.

"That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council's prescription and put them into practice."

Anthony

Anthony said...

"Replacement and total abrogation of the Mass of Paul VI are urgent."

You can be certain that that won't happen during Pope Benedict XVI's reign.

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO DATA"
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

"The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.

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

Anthony

dcs said...

If the Pauline Missal is not what the council intended, then why was it promulgated?

Because Pope Paul VI decided to promulgate it. It was an entirely top-down reform, just like all the other liturgical reforms of the XXth century.

Tom said...

A Cardinal has informed us that the Novus Ordo Mass is not the Mass envisioned by Sacrosanctum Concilium.

At least two Cardinals (Burke and Koch) have infomed us that Pope Benedict XVI wishes to create a TLM-Novus Ordo "hybrid" Mass.

Archbishop Chaput, promoted as a "staunch conservative" by neo-cons, insisted that the Novus Ordo is a great blesssing to the Church and as compared to the Traditional Roman Mass, is a much richer worship experience.

From First Things

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/06/glorify-god-by-your-life

Archbishop Chaput, June 30, 2010:

"In this regard, the Novus Ordo, the new order of the Mass promulgated after the council, has been a great blessing to the Church.

"Our liturgy gives us the zeal for the evangelization and sanctification of our world.

"The vernacular has opened up the liturgy’s content in new ways.

"It has encouraged active, creative participation by all the faithful — not only in the liturgy but in every aspect of the Church’s mission.

"By the way, for the record, I’m also very grateful that the Holy Father has allowed wider use of the older Tridentine form — not because I personally prefer it, in fact I find the Novus Ordo, properly celebrated, a much richer expression of worship..."

My point is that thanks to our Churchmen, massive confusion is widespread within the Church.

The TLM is not the Mass of Vatican II...but recent Popes said otherwise.

The Novus Ordo is deficient...no, it's "much richer expression of worship" than the TLM.

The Pope desires that each Latin parish offer the TLM, according to at least one Cardinal.

Conversely, Pope Benedict XVI declared that Summorum Pontificum was a mere act of tolerace aimed at the relatively small group of Catholics attached to said Mass.

His Holiness also declared that we should not expect TLM to be offered on a widespread basis.

What on earth are we supposed to believe?

Incredible!

Tom

Mar said...

"The language that was used during it and the completeness of the texts show that the Council fathers was (sic) not as much motivated by the need to pass judgement on controversial new ecclesiastical and theological issues, but rather by the wish to
turn their attention to public opinion within the Church and the entire world, in the spirit of the annunciation."

Does anyone understand what exactly the "spirit of the annunciation" means in this context and how it is relevant?

Anil Wang said...

Anthony, I don't see any mention of perfect conformity with SC. All I see is that it was brought to a conclusion. There's a big difference. It's no secret that JPII didn't think the liturgical changes were that big a deal and that he actually thought some aspects of the NO which didn't confirm to SC were positive developments.

Nonetheless, it's clear the NO does not confirm to SC as the document you quoted confirms. Can one seriously say that the NO "introduced and developed the use of the vernacular – without diminishing the use of Latin"? When was the last Latin (outside of Christmas) that you've heard at a typical NO mass?

I am not Spartacus said...

The first time the Bishops of Vatican Two saw a performance of the New Mass they were shocked and they voted against its acceptance

Nevertheless, it was then imposed upon all by Pope Paul VI and we were all told it was just like the reform of Mass after Trent and that it was a great blessing - blah, blah, blah

Marko Ivančičević said...

Can anyone explain it to me how can latin retained if vernacular is to be introduced and it's up to bishop's conferences to decide to what extent it is introduced? How can gregorian chant be first and have pride of place if other things are equal - if something is first among things than it is not equal with other things, and if everything is equal nothing is first and nothing has pride of place...but hey..maybe there is some third way of inclusiveness -.-
How this rite is not the direct fruit of SC and how could someone not expect deviations if SC itself called for innovations if they are for the good of the Church(like there has been any discussion about the goodnes of those innovations)?
I'm sorry your eminence but you are wrong...SC and VII(and also the GIRM) are to blame for the NO in it's most reverent and irreverent mode of celebration...

Bernonensis said...

Yes, the problems with the liturgy are so bad that even a cardinal can see them.
Something His Eminence says, though, is particularly revealing of why the Church faces the problems it does.
"What is fifty years after all?" he asks. I answer that it is more than a lifetime for most of the faithful alive today; it is two whole generations of poorly catechized Catholics; it is an untold number of souls deprived of spiritual helps because of invalid sacraments; it is millions of people losing their faith because of the modernism, indifferentism and blasphemy spewed from so many pulpits with the full knowledge of Rome and the local bishops; it is half a century of suffering under Communist regimes that crush and persecute their own people, particularly faithful Christians, without a murmur of protest from the glorious Council and its offspring.
To one who has suffered the horrible effects of those fifty years, and suffers them still, what comfort is it to know that it will all be straightened out a century or more from now? The complacency evident in the Cardinal's words is the besetting sin of the hierarchy, and of the Curia especially; it would be scandalous if we were still capable of being scandalized by such things.
Enough of this "Eternal Rome" superstition inherited from the pagans; the Church of Christ and his apostles knows only one eternal city.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

Paul VI made many mistakes, but he was generally ignored whenever he behaved like a real pope. Although he looked the other way while liturgical abuses began to flourish, at least he didn't propagate them himself. That disgrace was left to John-Paul the "Great," who no only permitted, but actively participated in some of the worst liturgical nightmares of the past 30 years.

Malta said...

...The liturgical reform was a great profanation of the Sacred

I agree, Professor, and the real irony, is that in turning the Liturgy from Sacrifice to Paschal Meal, Bugnini and his protestant friends, while trying to placate our Jewish friends, actually did them an offense: as Michael Davies points out in his book, The Eternal Sacrifice, the Jews always observed the Temple Sacrifice; the earliest Christians were Jewish. Jesus was Sacrifice; the mass is the eternal unbloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is not primarily a meal as the Novus Ordo has it (though it does have a component of a community meal, but it is primarily sacrifice, which is absent from the Novus Ordo).

TDC said...

That jumped out at me as well. Haven't a clue.

Matthew Rose said...

Dr. Williams:

Excuse me, Communion in the Hand?

Mnemosyne said...

Speaking of 50 years, I now recall this quote from a Vatican official:

"The old rite is our past, and it will be our future, " he told me. "The new Mass is a passing phase. In 50 years, that will be entirely clear."

From:

http://www.summorumpontificum.net/2010/06/vatican-official-new-mass-is-passing.html

Benedict Carter said...

Indeed we are still paying the price; and will, until the Novus Ordo in all its manifold forms is entirely abrogated once and for all.

Iratus said...

"The indiscriminate removal of Latin and Gregorian Chants from liturgical celebrations and the erection of numerous altars were absolutely not acts prescribed by the Council."

## So why were they allowed ? The Cardinal's remarks fail to explain why if X, Y, & Z were not commanded by the Council, or by the documents that put its prescriptions into effect, X, Y & Z were done, and what had previously been dome was forbidden (such as the offering of the pre-Conciliar Mass.

To quote an OP above: "The Novus Ordo is the result of (1) well documented loopholes or "time bombs" in the document itself; (2)acts of the official commission given authority for implementing liturgical changes; (3) whose acts were approved by Pope Paul VI."

## There is absolutely no way of evading this.

Iratus said...

@Mar:

""The language that was used during it and the completeness of the texts show that the Council fathers was (sic) not as much motivated by the need to pass judgement on controversial new ecclesiastical and theological issues, but rather by the wish to
turn their attention to public opinion within the Church and the entire world, in the spirit of the annunciation."

Does anyone understand what exactly the "spirit of the annunciation" means in this context and how it is relevant?"

## I think what is meant is that the author is saying the Council Fathers wished to act in the spirit of the words of St.Gabriel at the Annunciation; presumably so as to make the joy of the Annunciation a reality in their own time, IOW,the early 60s.

The relevance of acting in "the spirit of the Annunciation" is - AFAICS - that what the angel did then by bringing the message of salvation, they would be doing at the Council, in different circumstances but for the same saving purpose.

Hope that helps :)

DrDyson said...

Perhaps this is a stupid question; but what, exactly, was wrong with the Tridentine Rite? What was there about it that needed 'renewal' or 'reform'? No one has ever explained this to me. I still remember with pain how it was taken away from us slice by slice in the 1960s. Even after all this time, I still believe that the Tridentine Mass is the sublime articulation of religious devotion and aspiration. I utterly fail to understand those who actually prefer the banalities (and heresies) of the Novus ordo missae?