Rorate Caeli

For the Record: the influence of the "Extraordinary Form"

This excerpt of Archbishop Burke's interview to Inside the Vatican has been posted elsewhere, but we post it here for our ongoing record on the influence of the Extraordinary Form on the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, an influence which Burke believes will take place in an actual reform of the Sacred Liturgy:

[Inside the Vatican:] You were also very supportive of groups in St Louis, wishing to make use of Summorum Pontificum. With the looser restrictions in the celebration of the Old Mass, is the movement for tradition likely to grow, and what effect is this likely to have on the liturgical reform?

[Burke:] Pope Benedict XVI has made clear his reasons for the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, among which is the enrichment of the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite through the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. Such enrichment will be natural, since the Ordinary Form developed organically from what is now the Extraordinary Form. The more that the faithful come to appreciate the Extraordinary Form, the more they will also come to understand the profound reality of every celebration of the Holy Mass, whether in the Extraordinary or Ordinary Form. If I understand the Holy Father correctly, with time, a further reform of the Sacred Liturgy may take place, which more fully draws upon the richness of the Extraordinary Form. The legislation given in Summorum Pontificum, I am convinced, will foster greatly the liturgical reform which was the goal of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.


Paul Haley said...

With due respect to His Excellency his comments regarding the new mass organically flowing from the old puts him squarely in opposition to Cardinal Ottaviani who said: "the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."

Having said that I am optimistic that the holy father will resist any attempt to concoct a hybrid mass, merging the two existing forms into one. Does not experience teach anything? Look at the divisions created by attempts to change what has been considered for centuries "holy and sacred."

Do we really need to exacerbate these wounds all over again? Methinks the opposite and we should leave well enough alone.

Confiteor said...

Such enrichment will be natural, since the Ordinary Form developed organically from what is now the Extraordinary Form.


An outrageous statement that flies in the face of reality. In fact, I think it would not be entirely unfair to characterize the statement as a flagrant falsehood.

I know that Archbishop Burke is a hero to conservatives and even some Trads, yet his statement strains the limits of credibility.

Anonymous said...

Original Post said, "If I understand the Holy Father correctly, with time, a further reform of the Sacred Liturgy may take place, which more fully draws upon the richness of the Extraordinary Form."

I hope,pray,pleed,fast,do penance that the Pope will reform the inorganic NO and leave the Extraordinary form alone.

Ben said...


Those, like yourself, that don't understand the way Archbishop Burke talks, don't understand how he and the Pope think. They both see the traditional mass as a rock or a lighthouse to guide a return to tradition. The fact is, the new mass broke too far from tradition. In the beginning, Ottaviani spoke clearly of this while most were blind to see it.

The fact remains that the Mass must organically grow and not change radicallly abruptly. Your opinion is that it has done just that. The Pope and the Archbishop feel the same. But their language does two things, first it doesn't seem radical by stating the truth that liturgies organically develope and second it sets the stage to bring the new mass into alignment with the theology and form of the ancient mass.

The best analogy I can come up with is how the way the Pope talks about Vatican II. It seems there is a break in our Church after the Council. Many Traditionalist side with the Modernists on this question. Both groups believe that the Church before and after Vatican II are different things. All the Popes say that they are not. The truth is, is that they are one and the same Church. But it is also true that to make this clear, Tradition must be sought to align the two. Vatican II must and has to be interpreted in light of Tradition. Traditionalists can't just condemn over and over but help convert and teach those that lost there way after the liberals of the sixties took over much of the Church.

Just the same way, the new Mass must be brought back to the tradition and theology of the Mass that is eternal and the forms must be more clearly brought in line with tradition.

Anonymous said...

"is the movement for tradition likely to grow, and what effect is this likely to have on the liturgical reform?"



Here in the USA, Archbishop Burke was very supportive of the Tridentine Latin Mass. But now, his comment sounds like "beating around the bush"....the "Vaticanspeak" so many people have come to distrust.

Ferreira Jr. said...

"...since the Ordinary Form developed organically from what is now the Extraordinary Form..."

Absolutely not true, Excellency!

W. Schrift said...

Absolutely in agreement. "Organic development" is squarely at odds with historical reality - the NO was developed in vitro by a committee and categorically imposed.

How anyone could requisition the terminology of organic development and apply it to a fabricated liturgy is confusing.

Perhaps it reflects a sad case of wishful thinking, or an attempt at reconciliation. However, it is obvious to me that it could never be construed as the case. To know the Ordinary Form is not to know the Extraordinary Form. There is a family resemblance at best, though it is something closer to a mockery.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Haley,

Resist any attempt at a hybrid Mass? The Pope is the chief supporter of the project.

And what are you taxing poor Cardinal Burke about the "organic" business? He's just a good, hardworking show conservative, repeating what his boss has said in the MP.

Anonymous said...

Forgive me for asking, but didn't the Council Fathers ask for a reform of the Old Mass? They wanted a reform and the Old Mass should be reformed, for that is what the living Body of Christ has said through her legitimate heads. However, the NO was not a reform of the TLM, but a new concoction. Therefore, the TLM should be reformed in accordance with the wishes of the Council Fathers, and the NO has to be given a makeover in order to make it resemble the TLM. Perhaps this may give rise to what some of you are calling a "hybrid" mass, but certainly the Council requested reforms, so the TLM should not remain untouched. Properly developed, a "hybrid' mass can be the true mass of Vatican II, the mass desired by the Council Fathers, which is a TLM with some little reforms. Any attempt to fossilize the mass into one untouchable mass is erroneous, because there is no such thing as one fixed, untouchable mass. The Body of Christ is a Living Body, not an artifact. We must do the job of reforming the Roman Rite, but it must be done properly, as an organic development, not some foolish, Protestant-Modern concoction.

Confiteor said...

Who is right, Ben or John McFarland?

Honestly, I waver between the two, my strong disagreements with John McFarland on other threads notwithstanding.

Ben's thesis sounds so promising. I want to believe!

I feel like Charlie Sheen between Sgt Elias and Sgt Barnes in Platoon. :-) One must choose between hope and despair! Or is it a choice between wishful thinking and harsh reality?

Paul Haley said...

St. Pius V said it: "We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered there in.

Now, why did he say this? Was it because he foresaw that changes would inevitably affect the psyche of the man/woman in the pew, that it would undermine their belief in the mysteries taking place on the altar? Did he know from experience that changes had crept into the mass before Trent and the council fathers at that time wanted to standardize the liturgy to eliminate all contradictions and possible heresies?

It is proposed that the real intent is for the novus ordo to come closer to the TLM and not vice versa. However, nearly two years ago the definition of "pro multis" in the consecration was definitely pronounced as "for many". Yet, has it been implemented? No, it has not. Why? I'll let the reader answer that question. Yet the prayer for the Jews on Good Friday was changed in a heartbeat.

I'm not questioning the pope's intent but I do question the advisability of instituting any more changes in the liturgy, particularly if it means a hybrid concoction. Just think of what this would do to efforts underway in the dialogue with the SSPX. In my opinion it would be a disaster.

Anonymous said...

one is in error or one is not.!!

Jordanes said...

Well, if the reformed Mass organically grew from the traditional Mass, it was one of the most inorganic organic developments anybody has every seen. I know the Pope has spoken of the reformed Missal as an organic development, and clearly there is continuity between the old and new Missals, but still, that's an awful lot of inorganic with your organic . . . .

However, nearly two years ago the definition of "pro multis" in the consecration was definitely pronounced as "for many". Yet, has it been implemented? No, it has not. Why? I'll let the reader answer that question. Yet the prayer for the Jews on Good Friday was changed in a heartbeat.

The "pro multis" revision has not yet been implemented because Liturgiam Authenticam requires that the entire Missal be properly translated and implemented as a whole, not piecemeal. The rationale is to avoid the pastorally disastrous "death of a thousand paper cuts" to which the Paul VI and the Consilium subjected the Roman liturgy during the 1960s. Fix the mistranslated liturgy and then implement it all at once, like removing dressing from a wound in one motion rather than slowly, painfully, hair follicle by hair follicle, peeling it off the skin.

In comparison, the revision to the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews was a much simpler affair, since it was not a piece of a larger retranslation project of the entire Johannine Missal -- all it took was substituting a new Latin prayer for the ancient one. And while I understand, and am partly sympathetic, to the reasons for changing that prayer, I still think something so venerable and grounded in Holy Scripture should have been left alone, and I pray it is not the first of a new series of paper cuts . . . . If anything, it's the prayer for the Jews in the reformed Missal that is in much, much, much greater need of revision than the traditional prayer ever was.

Marie Auxiliadora said...

I would recommend to everyone reading the posts on Angelqueen by Mr. Downey in several different discussions addressing the question of the Novus Ordo, its relationship to the 1962 Missal and how these both are at odds with the Immemorial Roman Rite. Also, Mr. Rubrician who recently replied to Bishop Williamson.

We are into the "reform of the reform" and everyone should know how to address this issue. I believe that these two men know what they are talking about.

Marie Auxiliadora

Ben said...

Let me add another analogy.

A strong TREE that had undergone very little pruning in many years is deemed in need by the Authority given to the Church by God.

The ones put in charge of the pruning went crazy in their misguided zelousness. They cut it way back and let it grow parts they thought it may have once had long ago.

Now pruning, is a technique used to help trees flurish and possibly grow in different directions. The job is either deemed well done or poorly done but how it grows back and what is left over. Much fruit can be gained by proper pruning.

Vatican II definatly called for some specific and some not so specific pruning. I beleive in all of our opinions we beleive it pruned in excess and let things grow in that are undesirable.

Now back to the Mass... The TLM is given back to the Church by the Pope to have a clear understanding of what the "tree" looked like and what we started with. I believe the Archbishop sees that the New Mass is still the same tree but way over pruned and such. The owner of the tree should recongnize it as such but also recognized that it must let many of the parts that were pruned off grow back the way they were because they went too far. The future church has the difficult job bringing it back in line with tradition without causing more rupture. The TLM should stand tall as a glorious tree.


Paul Haley said...

Jordanes said:

The "pro multis" revision has not yet been implemented because Liturgiam Authenticam requires that the entire Missal be properly translated and implemented as a whole, not piecemeal. The rationale is to avoid the pastorally disastrous "death of a thousand paper cuts" to which the Paul VI and the Consilium subjected the Roman liturgy during the 1960s."

In my humble opinion the change to the words of consecration is so important, it overrides the other changes that have been proposed. How long must we wait for this change to be implemented?

For what it's worth, I'll believe it when I see it. The change comes to the very heart of what we believe as Catholics - i.e., the efficiency of the sacrifice vs the sufficiency aspect. For over 2,000 years the efficiency aspect was emphasized in the consecration and it's going to take more time to have it implemented? In the meantime the pew-goers in the NO are being given the wrong interpretation. It boggles the mind.

Anonymous said...

Ben said,"We must do the job of reforming the Roman Rite, but it must be done properly, as an organic development, not some foolish, Protestant-Modern concoction."

The V2 Fathers wanted change but their will was coerced as per witnesses ref, Rhine Flows Tiber and Iota.

I simply don't trust the current Vatican curia to correctly define and implement organic additions.

The Mass of all time is not a fossil. It needs to be loved and brought out into the light for a long time and then perhaps some organic additions can be added.

The people that complain about the TLM being out dated are liberals and can't be trusted. There reasons for 'improvements' inevitably end where other counsels condemned novelty. There is nothing new under the sun.

confiteor said...


That's a good analogy. The Roman Canon (including the consecration) can be seen as the trunk and root of the tree -- pretty much the only thing left standing after the hack job that was performed on all the limbs.

Those in charge of caring for the tree ought to admit that the tree was subjected to a hack job, not a proper pruning.

Anonymous said...

Burke engages in a partial quotation. He is referring to a papal text in which H.H. said that the two 'forms' (his misterm for these two separate liturgical rites) would likely influence *each other*. Ever since then, starting with that neo-conservative, Fr. Zuhlsdorf, there has been speculation that the influence would likely go mostly onto the N.O. But that is NOT what the Pope said.

I'd be worried here. It looks very much to me as if Burke is in Msgr. Perl's 'classical liturgy' over the 'traditional liturgy' category. These chaps want to marry perfection and trash in order to create something better than either. Of course, the effect will be to create something better than the N.O. but worse than the Gregorian Rite of Mass.

Let's resists them. The S.S.P.X, in particular, should not change one dot or tittle in the 1962 Mass. So far, so good: the Good Friday Prayer has not been changed in Society Masses.


Anonymous said...

This could all be solved instantly with the cancellation of the Novus Ordo and its replacement by the Extraordinary Rite in the vernacular. The solid rubrics and prayers would return and those who want some English, spanish whatever get that.

Anonymous said...

The doctrine of transubstantiation takes place in the OF and EF of the one Roman Rite. But God makes use of very imperfect instruments to transmit His risen/eternal life to His Church. God "writes straight with crocked lines." There is no sacramental efficacy without the life-giving fruits that are transmitted from Christ and shed upon and for the people. Thus, the consecration unites the Person of Christ with His body, the Church [mediator Dei].
One instantly notices, for example, the EFFICACY of the consecration, when the priest, in PERSONA CHRISTI CAPITAS, consciously and reverently consecrates, so that the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood STAND OUT [existare] and radiate the life-giving love of the sacrifice of the Person of Christ. This is only the case IF the priest has incorporated the practice of supernatural virtue into his life. Then the consecration moves beyond the mere performance of an effective act to reveal an efficacious event, whose primary act comes from Christ and whose proper respnse is participation in His risen and eternal life. Thus, the priest "gets out of the way" so that Christ can act through him to shed His light and life upon all the members of His Church. That requires HUMILITY and REVERENCE that allows for a deep contemplation. The people "know" when this is happening; it causes a deep silence and even "awe."

Ben said...

Anonymous said...
Ben said,"We must do the job of reforming the Roman Rite, but it must be done properly, as an organic development, not some foolish, Protestant-Modern concoction."

I did not say these words. It was another "anonymous" who said it.

Actually I would never say that. I think and I think the Pope feels that the reform of Vatican II has already took place. The TLM should not be reformed. It has never been abrigated...which means that the TLM should exist along side the reformed mass. The original "tree" from my analogy will stand strong and the overly pruned tree will have to be helped back into a full healthy tree. We don't have to "trust" the current Vatican to 'do the right thing'. The New Mass can be brought back into conformity with what the organic development should have looked like if the "tree" was pruned properly to begin with. We can't lose if all the church does is add back what should not have been removed.

This will happen slowly. It will be acceptable if the church gets used to seeing and experiencing the older form more and more commonly.

Anonymous said...


- I think the Cardinal is just being diplomatic with his words.

There have been 40 years of liberals changing the liturgy, when one bishop comes along with sympathies for the TLM please give him a break!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Ya, the VII Council Fathers wanted change, but what kind of change did they want? The closest analogy I can think of is the Obama form of one really knows until we are in the middle or after the fact, by that time will anyone be able to stop it (like Ottaviani tried)?
Now we have Bishops/Archbishops trying to redefine organic growth out of synthetic material...
Guess I will just continue with the Million Rosary Crusade...this seems to be about the only hope we have.

Stanislas Wojtiech, Stanislawów (Ukr. terr.) said...

Such enrichment will be natural, since the Ordinary Form developed organically from what is now the Extraordinary Form.

This is utter nonsense, with all due respect. The Novus Ordo Missae was designed at desks in Offices of the Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, headed by Annibale Bugnini (a known Freemason).

And the "liturgical reform desired" by the 2nd Vatican Council was realized by the 1965 Roman Missal, with options for use of the vernacular language for chants and readings, and a true organic reform from the 1962 and 1954 Missals. It was given by the Congregation of Rites under Cardinal Larraonana Saralegui. In its preface it is stated, that it is the reformed Missal according to the will of Sacrosanctum Concilium. This is was extensively proven by amongst others Dr. Claudia Wick.

The 1965 Missal can be stated to have "organically" developed, and even the 1965 Missal was created under pressure - and did not develop in the liturgical (orthodox) richness and variationism of the Middle Ages like the Roman Curial Missal codified in 1570.

Abp. Burke should come to see this and learn. The ignorance and ideological blindness among many even good-willed Conciliar prelates is far to be sought.

The 1969 Novus Ordo Missae was created. And even Joseph Ratzinger called it a "banal on-the-spot product".

ralph roister-doister said...

Ottaviani has the better of the argument IMO. Let us not forget that at V2 young Fr Ratzinger was a theological consultant to Cdl Frings, one of the most influential members of the liberal alliance of middle european bishops whose self-described inspiration by the Holy Spirit has given us four decades of chaos and counting. The intervening years may have softened the edges of his once-glaring liberalism, but they have not led to many major revisions of his thought, even regarding the liturgy.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Wojtiech's comment on the "organic" reform of the Roman Missal is correct (except for the part about Bugnini being a "known" Freemason -- it has been alleged that he was a Freemason, but there is no way to prove he was, and he always denied it).

henrici said...

stanislaus: The Novus Ordo Missae was designed at desks in Offices of the Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia.

Actually, I recall from somewhere the allegation that a couple of the new Eucharistic Prayers were written in a Rome hotel room, during a single week by a single outside "expert". Can anyone provide a reference on this?

Abp. Burke should come to see this and learn.

I can understand that Ab. Burke might not be so well known in eastern Europe. But I seriously doubt that anyone here could inform him of anything he's unaware of. In his breadth of knowledge and depth of understanding he's quite unlike any other current prelate in the Roman Catholic Church (excepting our Holy Father from unseemly comparison).

Cosmos said...

Burke is a great man who is doing his best.

While the NO does not, in fact, seem to organically grow out of the traditional mass, there is no doubt that it should have! The only justification of the current mass is reading it in those terms.

In some legal systems, laws which seem unconstitutional on their face are read and enforced in a way that assumes they were intended to be constitutional. The current Pope, who is a shrewd and pragmatic man, has chosen this path (think "two forms one right" solution). He has stated that while the new form has defects and has certainly been abused, the intention of VII, and the legitimate work of those following the council, was to rework the mass organically within the tradition. Therefore, for all intensive purposes, we are going to assume that they did just that.

In other words, he has first defeinitively stated the principle of law (organic growth only). He then assumed that the reformers tried to do that and the NO is the result. If he stopeed there, we would have a problem, but he does not. He then concludes that they did not do a wonderful job and that the NO requires reformation in light of the organic principle.

However, what he doe not do is get into the blame game. He simply skipped over pointing fingers and causing turmoil. Instead of saying that some have changed the mass with bad intentions, he said that here is the only way we can change the mass so lets make sure that we have done that well. This forces people to oppose the principle instead of the personality of BXVI, which is very wise in the short and long term.

However, he has not (and will not) conclude that the call by VII for even organic change was problematic.

Joe B said...

I don't believe we can survive long with two competing masses. There have always been multiple rites, but never two in direct competition for the bulk of the Body of Christ. Advocates on each side are angrily entrenched, and there is no meeting in the middle since the newer one presents an ever-changing man-centered view of God, and traditionalists abhor that view altogether. No, one or the other must die. It's just a matter of time. The church cannot long endure such schizophrenic division.

The TLM was the one marked for destruction, of course, but isn't it amazing how indestructible the TLM has shown itself to be against overwhelming violence, while the NO has never shown the ability even to recover from the last surgery in time for the next? I'm now confident the TLM will live on. This won't be resolved by a hybrid mass.

J.C. said...

This is not a comment related to the displayed topic, but I have no idea as to how to contact you otherwise.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of our Pastor, Rev. Anthony J. Manuppella.

If possible, Father would like you to incorporate the enclosed announcement on your website.

We are most grateful for any consideration you can give to this request.

May God continue to bless you and your work.

Sincerely, on behalf of Father Manuppella,

J. C.


Since the first Sunday in Advent, 2007, the Noon Mass at St. Peter Roman Catholic Church, 43 W. Maple Avenue, Merchantville, NJ 08109, (, is celebrated in the Extraordinary Form each Sunday, Holy Day, and on other special occasions.

A Traditional Latin High Requiem Mass, in the Extraordinary Form, featuring the beautiful Fauré’s Requiem, will be celebrated on Thursday, November 6th, at 7:00 PM.

Fauré originally wrote this Requiem in 1887 to commemorate the death of his father. “Everything I managed to entertain by way of religious illusion I put into my Requiem, which moreover is dominated from beginning to end by a feeling of very human faith in eternal rest.”

We invite all who live in the South Jersey and Philadelphia, PA regions to participate in this special Mass for our beloved holy souls.

Jordanes said...

Thanks for the announcement, J.C.

New Catholic's email address is newcatholic AT gmail DOT com.

Anonymous said...

I think the spirit of competition (and not the friendly kind) is the problem. Personally, I have friends in town who only go to the TLM, some who only go to the OF, another only goes to the Ukrainian parish and some who go sometimes to each (soon you can add Dominican rite to that list). There's no animosity or spite or "competition." But we're all Catholic. Just because someone assists at the liturgy at a different parish or at a different time than me doesn't make than any less Catholic in my mind.

The problem is not so much the existence of different liturgies, but attitudes of the people who hate one or the other (including those who abuse one or the other)or who look down on those who assist at one or the other. That is where the division comes.

While there do still exist clergy and laity alike hostile to one side or the other, it has been my experience that my generation (I am 27) and and those younger who care about the faith (laity, seminarians, clergy, religious, etc.) do not have those wounds or ideological baggage that lead to that hostility.

Anonymous said...

Anon 16:19

Look deeper at the issues as to why there are ill feelings - not only at what you see on the surface thinking that attitude is the main issue. Albeit charitable behavior is demanded by Christ.

Examine the 'baggage' prudently and see if your acceptance position will not be modified. Please read Rhine Flows into the Tiber and Iota Unum.

If a Catholic sees the NO as a grave compromise he/she will fight for the truth and hate compromise.

The NO wants compromise for all the reasons discussed.

Are they reconcilable. Not in my eyes.

Our Lady said there will be diabolical disorientation.

With all due respect, please be a peace maker for the Truth not for synthesis of errors.

God bless you.

Anonymous said...

It seems the Archbishop believes rather naively that one can bring about moral change for the better by incrementalist commitee projects, without having recourse to a call to repentance and the intervention from on high of a special grace.

To imagine that you can convert hearts hardend by liturical experiementation for 40 years by a simply a comprimising MP or "organic" developments, is nonsensible in Catholic theology....

The Church needs a good boot-in-the-pants-kicking Pope with MPs of the same caliber: until like Our Lord who cleansed the Temple with a whip, you will not have reverent liturgy restored in the Church.

All the complaints about the preconciliar abuses are nothing, because they were done out of human weakness and ignorance: but to have the hierarchy itself imposing mayhem is an abomination before God that can only merit their own damnation.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Anonymous said...

There has been conniving and scheming at every Council. There has been blasphemies uttered at many of them. Read what saints like Gregory Nazienzen or Anthony Mary Claret said about the Councils they participated in. Vatican II just received more coverage and print because of modern technology.

The Curia has also likewise suffered from such things since its inception.

However, to say that the liturgy prayed by the Holy See, the mother and teacher of all the Churches, is somehow sinful or to be hated is contrary to the faith and the truths about that See.

It is true that not all liturgies are equal--I personally find the EF of the Roman Rite is the most beautiful and theologically expressive of all the Eastern and Western litugies, but that doesn't mean the others are sinful or should be hated or that they need to become a source of division. And the same goes for those that hate the EF or any liturgical rite of the Catholic Church.

Joe B said...

Nonetheless, they are. Certainly not His Excellency, but most NO bishops who even now resist the TLM truly hate it as the Pharisees hated Christ. Many TLM advocates hate the NO because it feeds and showcases the enemies of tradition and liturgical reverence, and expresses both ignorance and depravity in its many "abusive" performances, all of which are condoned by these same bishops. And worse, all of this for no reason, as nothing was wrong with the mass of our Fathers.

Anonymous said...

"However, to say that the liturgy prayed by the Holy See, the mother and teacher of all the Churches, is somehow sinful or to be hated is contrary to the faith and the truths about that See."

If there is nothing abusive in the New Liturgies, then there is nothing sinful or hateful: but there are many abusive things in the New Rites which go contrary to revealed truth, such as not facing God when you are praying to Him, making man the center of things rather than Christ Jesus, profaing Sacred Scripture with heretical and blasphemous translations, or the Mass with prayers for material things to the exclusion of divine things, cutting off the transcendent dimensions, etc. etc. etc.

Your thesis that the Holy See's very nature cannot permit it ever to offer a perverse form of liturgy is only true if you take the terms of your theses in the strictest sense, wherein "Holy See" refers to the offical acts which bind all catholics in conscience, and "perverse" in the sense that the very abuses are mandated.

The Church has never taught that the Holy Father's person or the Curia cannot fall into immorality or laxity nor as a matter of pratical governance allow, permit and guide the Church into such, without official requiring all Catholics everywhere to such.

By the mere fact that the Ancient Rite was never officially abrogated, I do not see how one can use the arguments of indefectibility to defend the new Rites, since in God's sight the Old Ones remained the official liturgy imposed by His Authority, whereas the New Rites were only allowed not imposed by Peter's Authority, and thus do not have the sanction of Christ's Authority or the same kinds of grace protecting it.

Surely no pope is protected by grace in those things which he habitually or wilfullly ignores. That the recent popes have habitually and willfully ignored the theological errors at the very foundation of the praxis of the New Rites (e.g. modernism, materialism, egalatarianism, Dom Odo Casel's Presence in Mystery nonsense) is well documented by many authors through the world.

It is theologically more probable that we have a case of a strong political party in the Church promoting immorality, rather than an action of the Church imputable to the Church as the Immaculate Bride of Christ.

Until we have decrees which bind all Catholics everywhere regarding the long theological disputes between this new party and the perennial party of the preconciliar period, we cannot say definitively that the New Party's position is pleasing to God, but rather must by the rules of interpretative praxis presume that the old remains approved by God and the new forever rejected.

Seing that God does not change and truth does not change and the truth about man does not change and man has not changed, it makes no sense to change liturgy or theology....

It is is a hard thing to swollow to say that a superior is more than likely going to Hell because of his objectively immoral positions, then I beg you to recognize that your own conscience if formed more by a political sensitivity than objective moral principles.

We Catholics are to be a people who judges things by Eternity, not time, and until that kind of political sense returns to the Hierarchy, we will have mayhem on Earth in the Church...

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Anonymous said...

That's not what "never abrogated" means. It means that it was always in continual, lawful use at least someplace, not that it wasn't legally restricted in certain places. For example, the Ambrosian liturgy has also never been abrogated, even though its use is restricted to only a few churches.

Plus, the ordinary form is still an officially lawful rite.

As a previous Pope, speaking of the administration of sacraments, once asked retorically, "The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth -- all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the Church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?"

And no, the unlawful abuse of a rite doesn't make the rite itself defective or contributory to such behavior. In other times of lax and worldly clerical and lay behavior, the Gregorian rite itself and other good rites were profaned or desecrated in all sorts of outrageous manners. A reading of Saints like Catherine of Siena, Bridget of Sweden, Peter Damian, Basil the Great, St. Cajetan, and even St. Thomas More before England fell into schism, all discuss sacrileges and abuses of the liturgy. Were these the cause of the rite? No, the abuse was a sympton of spiritual sloth, not a sympton of a defect in rite. They are caused by man's fallen nature.

Anonymous said...

Anon 18:34

Outside your argument is the fact that the NO is a departure from accepted Tradition.

In this context Br. Bugnolo statements make perfect sense.