Rorate Caeli

It wasn't?

(5/31/11 The official English translation can be found here.)

From the address of the Holy Father to the participants at the Conference for the 50th anniversary of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute:
The Liturgy of the Church goes beyond this same "conciliar reform" (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1), whose purpose, in fact, was not mainly that of changing the rites and the texts, but rather that of renewing the mentality and placing, at the center of Christian life and of pastoral [activity], the celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ. Unfortunately, perhaps, even by us, Pastors and experts, the Liturgy was treated more as an object to be reformed than as a subject, capable of renewing Christian life, from the moment in which "there exists a very close and organic link between the renewal of the Liturgy and the renewal of all the life of the Church. ..."
...
The Liturgy, privileged witness to the living Tradition of the Church, faithful to its original objective of revealing and rendering present in the hodie of human affairs the opus Redemptionis, lives from a correct and constant relationship between traditio and legitima progressio, clearly expressed by the conciliar Constitution at its n. 23. With these two concepts, the conciliar Fathers wished to deliver their program of reform, in balance with the great liturgical tradition of the past and the future. Not rarely are tradition and progress contrasted in a maladroit way. In reality, both concepts complete themselves: tradition is a living reality, including therefore in itself the beginning of development, of progress.

108 comments:

poeta said...

That's a stunning pronouncement.

Anonymous said...

Ok... a few days ago we discovered that DH was not a theological definition. Now, we learn that the purpose of SC was not to reform the liturgy but to "renew the mentality" (whatever that may mean).

It seems like there is something in the air... maybe these are the first fruits of the theological discussions?

Let's be sincere... these positions are not completely faithful to the text of the conciliar documents... but if there is to be a hermeneutic I prefer it to be faithful to tradition than to the text.

Anonymous said...

The statement, while sounding shocking, need not be so. The liturgical movement, for all its imperfections, was not originally aimed at changing rites but reasserting liturgical piety. Vatican II wanted to present the Faith to the modern world, and for that purpose, saw the internal renewal of her own life of worship as a necessary pre-condition to a renewed mission ad extra. How well these things were achieved is certainly debated, but it is not false to argue that, taking the whole history of the liturgical movement and the history of Vatican II (including the preparatory work) into account, the motive for the reform was a reinvigoration of the Church's life of Faith and worship, and flowing from that, a renewed evangelization of the world. The "time-bombs" and the radical reforms, even if intentionally planned by some and officially approved, do not do away with the original intent and expectation of those council fathers who did think they were enacting something so radical.

Henry said...

Now, we learn that the purpose of SC was not to reform the liturgy but to "renew the mentality" (whatever that may mean).

It means what was the original purpose of the pre-Vatican II liturgical movement that started with Pius X. It had earlier roots, but Pius X really got it off the ground with his famous exhortation to “pray the Mass” in union with the celebrant. This—namely, prayerful interior participation, not the silly stuff it means to many now--is what actuosa participatio (“actual participation”) meant to Pius X, and to the liturgical reform movement during the half century leading up to Vatican II. A revitalization of the participation of people in the traditional Mass, not the replacement of it with a new Mass.

And this is what “liturgical reform” meant to the vast majority of the Fathers of Vatican II—a reform of the hearts and minds of participants in the Mass of the Ages, not a structural revolution in the Mass itself. Finally, thanks be to God, we have a Pope to whom true liturgical reform evidently means what it meant to Pope St. Pius X.

M. A. said...

God in His mercy sent His very own Mother to alert us to the dangers which would ensue after 1960, but even now, who pays heed? Evil disguised as good infiltrated the church, I believe, at the last council, with the result that many in our hierarchy became diabolically disoriented.

{March 17, 1990) Cardinal Oddi:
[In the 3rd secret of Fatima]"The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church."

Msgr. Pacelli:
"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past."

Connie Summers said...

It occurs to me as I read the comments from readers of this blog who constantly disparge the Holy Father's teachings, writings, actions, etc. that many so-called "traditional" Catholics are not so much traditionalists as they are conventionalists. There is a vast difference between those two.

In any case, I love our Holy Father! He is marvelous! Keep teaching Holy Father, many MANY of us are listening and eager to learn.

Joe B said...

"The "time-bombs" and the radical reforms, even if intentionally planned by some and officially approved, do not do away with the original intent and expectation of those council fathers who did think they were enacting something so radical."

There it is again. That which was not intended was enacted by the same men who didn't intend it as soon as they got home. Give this one up, please. Most intended it or it wouldn't have spread so readily. Opponents were a minority.

rams said...

Words,

Words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words, words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words; words words words.

-Words

New Catholic said...

Well, words can be powerful. It all began with a Word, right?

NC

Anonymous said...

Here we go again: "living tradition". Ring around the rosie. He's getting ready--he is forever getting ready--to justify what he hopes to do. I wonder if he himself could connect progress to tradition by DOING something (progress) to restore tradition? Is this yet another before-the-fact defence of what he wishes to do? Just do it!

Raymond Cardinal Burke must be 'in the know' and notice his recent comment (published on this blog yesterday). He says that a way should be found to implement the m.p. more evenly around the world--to implement it universally. How can this be done? One might insist on a minimum no. of Masses per see as a norm at law but most bishops would simply ignore this. The only effective way is . . . jurisdiction, jurisdiction free of the local obstruc--, I mean, local bishops.

At this rate, talking about it is as far as it gets. Delay is deadlier than denial. While all this talk continues, our Mass is being forgotten all over the world. With every passing day, the connexion to pre-1970 liturgy gets more and more distant. The N.O. beoomes more and more entrenched as every papal pronuncment proceeds. Did Benedict XVI sign something yesterday on the Feast of St. Pius V? I certainly hope so. As today passes, yet more people die waiting for this problem to be fixed.

P.K.T.P.

Athelstane said...

That which was not intended was enacted by the same men who didn't intend it as soon as they got home. Give this one up, please. Most intended it or it wouldn't have spread so readily. Opponents were a minority.

This point has been made repeatedly here in the last week or two - that the bishops who approved the liturgical reform of SC at the Council were largely, if not almost wholly, the same ones who furthered much more radical "reforms" in the years after the Council. It's impossible to deny the heavy overlap of the two - even allowing for Paul VI's attempt to reduce episcopal opposition by the introduction of a new retirement age for bishops in 1966.

And yet I also have to wonder if the two positions can't be partially reconciled: that is, that when Sacrosanctum Concilium was passed in 1963, the bulk of the Council Fathers presumed they were voting for a fairly modest reform (and a significant minority saw it as an opening for something more). But many of these bishops were not heavily invested in the liturgy, and may have simply voted for what appeared to be a mild reform out of ecclesiastical risk aversion. But as the whirlwind of the cultural revolution rapidly picked up speed in 1965-1969, many simply went along with the whirlwind with varying degrees of enthusiasm or reluctance. Forced to toe the line for a seemingly unpopular reassertion of Church teaching on sexual ethics, allowing the growing surge of lay and clerical radicals to have their way in the liturgy may have seemed to be a tolerable compromise, especially when Pope Paul seemed to be going along with all of it as well.

There's more investigation to be done along these lines. Alcuin Reid's article on this surveying surviving Council Fathers is at least suggestive of this possibility.

.. said...

So....the purpose of the Conciliar Reform was to place, "at the center of Christian life and of pastoral [activity], the celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ."

Really!? What a novel concept! Why in the world did the Church not do this in Her previous 1960 years before VCII showed Her the light???

Oh wait, She did.

Nevermind....

Oh, and since the "reform" the "Paschal Mystery of Christ", far from REMAINING the "center of Christian life and of pastoral [activity]" has become a banal Protestantized, abuse-ridden, center of liturgical novelty and expirimentation.

But, wait a second, I'm actually thinking logically about this and realizing the reform is a load of....

*******

VATICAN: We interrupt this post as an emergency measure. It was beginning to think critically about the reform and to realize it is a failure. Said subject has been tranquilized and is currently receiving an IV of the "New Springtime".

Upon recovery he will realize the genius of the reform and its many fruits and will no longer be a threat to establishment policies.

Please resume your daily activities. Nothing to see here.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

New Catholic:

Every process has a beginning, a middle and an end. This implies movement. When the middle is identical to the beginning, one can rightly wonder if the end will ever come--or if it makes any difference.

Others:

Then we have all the naive fools who blather on about the glories of the liturgical renewal. The original liturgical movement was hyjacked long before Vatican II was even planned, and the baby steps of Bugnini the Barbarian started to be implemented as early as 1950. Revolution in the Church was an aspect of revolution in society These found their expression in the 1960s but their origins much earlier in Modernism. It is futile to ask what some fathers at Vatican II 'intended' as they signed this document or that. What counts is what the periti intended as they crafted every forumlation to be considered.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Joe B writes:

"There it is again. That which was not intended was enacted by the same men who didn't intend it as soon as they got home. Give this one up, please. Most intended it or it wouldn't have spread so readily. Opponents were a minority."

Well said, Joe B. I couldn't have put it better. This nonsense from some here is ancient newes by now. As Americans are wont to say: Gimmie a break.

P.K.T.P.

Traditional Catholic said...

Wasn't the Mass at the center of Catholic life before Vatican II? In what sense was it being "renewed" then? I echo the statement of Anonymous: what does "renew the mentality" mean?

rams said...

New Catholic,

The words of men cannot be compared to the Word of God.

My point is that all this just seems like idle talk. We need to see some actions. I feel like statements like these are just meant to please people.. to tickle their ears.

Well, I for one am not having it.

We need concrete actions to back such statements. I'm so burned out as a result of the fact that the only thing that's keeping me from loosing my faith is the my firm belief in the indefectability of the church and its glorious history. There should be more than that, but at this point, thats all I have to hold on to. I don't want to hear any more words till something substantiates it- its due time, actually its long overdue, for some real and effective action.

New Catholic said...

PKTP: we report, you decide...

NC

Pascendi said...

PKTP hits the nail on the head with the post-conciliar actions of various committees etc. For example, an all vernacular Mass was unthinkable in 1965, but by 1969 ...

shane said...

Most, if not all the changes, introduced in the Novus Ordo had already been implemented in parts of Europe (particularly France, Germany and Austria). Vatican II gave reformers an excuse to impose them universally.

Consider this extract of an article by Fr John Fennelly written in 1955:

Discussion on the introduction of the vernacular into the Mass rite itself would be outside the scope of this article. An increasing volume of liturgical opinion favours a limited use of it in the forepart of the Mass. The Mass of Catechumens would therefore resume its former role and primary function of instructing the people. At the International Liturgical Congress in Lugano (1953), a strong recommendation was forwarded to Rome by the delegates assembled, that the Collects, Epistle and Gospel should be heard directly from the sacred minister or ministers in the language of the people. Permission to use the vernacular in the administration of some of the Sacraments has been granted to many countries.

The use of the vernacular by the people is a totally different matter. A notable change has taken place within the past thirty years in Church policy with regard to hymns and prayers for popular use at quasi-liturgical functions like a Holy Hour. The general tendency nowadays is to encourage the people to pray and sing in their own tongue. The Germans are permitted to sing the common of the High Mass in German. It does not seem reasonable to force Latin on the ordinary congregation, if the people can be permitted to ‘pray the Mass’ in a language they understand.

[...] Fr. Pius Parsch, an Austrian, who died in 1954, is credited with the discovery of the best method of popular participation devised in our time. Fr. Clifford Howell, S.J., the well-known writer and apostle of the liturgical movement, thus describes it in an article in the Catholic Herald, of April 30th, 1954. ‘Fr Parsch had many remarkable achievements in the practical sphere. He is likely to be remembered best for a certain form of communal public Mass called the Betsingmesse (“Prayer-hymn-Mass”), which has now spread throughout the whole of Austria and Germany. This is a very practical and logical combination of two forms already in use: the Missa recitata or Dialogue Mass and hymn-singing during Mass.’

[...] Common prayer, seasoned with a little singing, is a reasonable contribution to ask from the faithful towards the splendour, dignity and social character of the Sacred Mysteries. It is the most and the least to expect from the average congregation assembled for Mass in the Parish Church here in Ireland or, perhaps, anywhere.

[...] And though Penal days are long gone by, the people have not regained their voice or attempted to take their rightful place in the Sacred Liturgy [...] Few are prepared to maintain that the Plain Chant revival movement, into which the schools have thrown themselves wholeheartedly, has yielded the results expected of it.

[...] The social and liturgical movements now stirring the Church are closely connected and inter-dependent. One cannot succeed without the other. Both set out to correct excessive Individualism and lead to the formation of the Christian community. Both derive their inspiration from the doctrine of the Mystical Body. Neither movement can be hurried. A whole generation may pass away before the social and liturgical teaching of the Popes becomes an active force influencing the public mind and penetrating into the sanctuary of the Church.

[...] It has been noticed that both these reform movements within the Church make striking progress in areas where the Church is subjected to severe pressure. At the International Liturgical Congress of Lugano, 1953, Bishop Weskham, of Berlin, could testify to the rapid progress of every kind of liturgical endeavour in the part of his diocese under Soviet control.

shane said...

CONTINUED

[...] There is no denying that the Roman Mass rite, as it stands, is ill-adjusted for teaching the populace or training their minds towards active, intelligent, and social participation. Fr. Clifford Howell, S.J., goes into this matter fully in his popular book on the Liturgy The Work of Our Redemption. Not only is there a lack of adjustment between the individualistic-minded laity and the communal-minded Liturgy, there is also an element of aloofness and elusiveness in the liturgy itself. In addition to the barrier of language, there exists a number of features that militate against intimacy. That is particularly noticeable at a low Mass. The priest has his back to the people and even when proclaiming the good tidings of the Gospel, does not face them. The present Mass rite and the rubrics governing its celebration were framed in the sixteenth century, at a time when participation on the part of the people was at its lowest ebb. Little change has been made since the time of St. Pius V. [...] Admission of the vernacular into the Mass rite would, at the time, have been equivalent to sanctioning doctrinal error and opening the door to devotional and liturgical chaos [...] The matter can now be debated on its merits.

[...] Many are unconscious of strong currents of social and liturgical reform moving within the Church, and, therefore, fail to understand a desire for change even when it is proved that the ‘innovation’ is a return to earlier and sounder tradition. They have no sympathy with the Pastor who would like to celebrate Mass facing his people at a small liturgical altar situated well down the Church, or who wishes for a revival of the Offertory Procession, the singing of the people during the distribution of Holy Communion, of the employment of Lectors to read the Collects, Epistle and Gospel of the day in the language of the people. These reforms are pressed for in regions where the Church can no longer control the school, and where religious education of any kind is banned in state schools.

[...] The new Easter Vigil rite incorporates many features that have long been desired by advocates of liturgical reform. It seems to be a portent of what may be expected in time to come. The Holy See will proceed slowly and with due regard for varying national conditions. But it cannot be doubted the liturgy has begun to move out of a feudal or ‘fossilised’ state.

[...] Should Pastors wait until reform measures are completed, or ought they take steps to prepare the minds of the people — especially youth — for impending change using the best means at present available? Mediator Dei leaves no room for doubt as to which course should be followed: ‘Strive earnestly, by methods and means which your prudence judges most effective, to bring about a close union between clergy and laity: that the faithful may take so active a part in the liturgy that it becomes really a sacred action in which both priest — especially the priest in his own parish — and people join in offering to Almighty God the worship which is His due’. Work on the people and with the people may begin under the direction of the Pastor with the approval and sanction of ecclesiastical authority." (‘Active Participation in the Mass’, Doctrine and Life, November, 1955.)

New Catholic said...

Rams, of course I got your point. But our whole religion is based on words, from the Word, to Holy Writ and the words of Tradition, including those hallowed words of Sacred Liturgy. So, indeed, words can be extremly powerful by themselves.

NC

Anonymous said...

According to Archbishop Lefebrve in his open letter, the liturgy was not at the center of the Church's life--there was a disconnect and a sclerosis according to him, which is why he originally supported a reform of some sort.

Prof. Basto said...

So....the purpose of the Conciliar Reform was to place, "at the center of Christian life and of pastoral [activity], the celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ."

Really!? What a novel concept! Why in the world did the Church not do this in Her previous 1960 years before VCII showed Her the light???
.

I can't believe that you actually fail to get the point that the Holy Father is trying to make.

I mean, in the subsequent paragraph, the Holy Father clearly admits to a mistake.

He admits to treating the liturgy as if it were merely an object to be reformed and not the subject, the subject that needs to be respected and venerated for its value, that it really is.

Yes, He states that the initial goal was to foster a positive outcome - the "placing at the center of the Christian life the pascal mystery of Christ". But He concedes that this goal was botched by the wrong way in which this project was approached.

That is, he concedes that the liturgical reform treated the Liturgy in a wrong and disrespectful way, as if it was merely the object of reform. Reform for reform sake, loosing sight of the intrinsic value of the inheirited tradition, and of the original purpose and goal of the liturgical movement.

We know that the original litugrical movement, started in the pontificate of St. Pius X, aimed to achieve the goal of placing the "paschal mystery of Christ at the center of the life of the faithful" by placing the liturgy at the core of Christian devotional practices; by making the several devotional practices have the liturgy, the official prayer of the Church, as their reference point.

Thus, there was the intention of reviving the public celebration of the Divine Offfice, of emphasising "active participation" by the study and knowledge of the texts of the Liturgical action, so that even the silent participation of the faithful would be an "actual participation"; the movement also aimed to promote the decorous celebration of High Masses as the ideal form of Sunday liturgy, etc.

Of course, what we got from the Council and especially from the postcouncil, under the guise of implementing this worthy goal of placing the Mass at the centre of devotional life, was a Pandora's box of badly implemented reforms, conducted by people that had the worst intentions, intentions of obliterating theological truths from the Mass, of making the liturgy less reverent, of making the rite less explicitly sacrificial, of opening the door to variations and adaptations that led to all sorts of abuses and experimations.

Thus, the Mass of Paul VI, albeit valid and licit, fails to live up, even when not distorted by bad celebrants, to the high standards of the liturgical patrimony of the Church in the West as well as in the East.

And things get only worse when you add to it the horrid changes in ecclesiastical architecture, the erection of Churches that are basically built by iconoclasts, the total obliteration of our tradition regarding the quality of vestments, sacred vessels, etc.

And, on top of it all, the several abuses that have crept into the celebration of Mass, often unnoticed by the humblest among the faithful (due to the fact that the rite itself now offers several possibilities of change; and the very existance of several options perhaps stimulates a bad priest to create others), abuses which are coupled with other abhorent pratices, such as the replacement of propers, the introdution of liturgical dance, the introduction of bad taste music, etc, etc, etc.

So, the result of the liturgical reform was deplorable, we all know.

But I think here the pope, in admitting that the reform was apprached in the wrong way, without reverence to the liturgy as a subject, is admitting that a mistake was made, and that admission is important.

I am not Spartacus said...

THe Pope has been especially fantastic lately. The defenestration of two Bishops, the authentic recapitulation of DH and now this.

It is not contrary to Tradition to thank The Holy Father

Dan said...

Prof Basto:

I wonder if it is possible to say, with all due respect, that you may be reading more into the Holy Father's words than are there? Benedict, like so many recent Popes, talks in ambiguous and often obscure phrases that simple laymen just cannot understand. But after reading your interesting post I re-read Benedict's words carefully and can't come to the same conclusions that you did. I realize that some of what the Holy Father said is probably sailing right over my head.

There was one thing that he said which is interesting, and not obscure: "whose purpose, in fact, was not mainly that of changing the rites and the texts." The critical word there is "mainly". I take that to mean that a changing of rites and texts WAS clearly intended, among other things. What else could that phrase mean? I only bring this up because some are now saying otherwise.

It may be a minor, indeed moot point but I found it interesting.

Henry said...

Two different ways:

(1) Believe that the bishops of Vatican II went home and enthusiastically implemented the reforms implicit in the Mass of Paul VI and all it entails, this being what they had intended at the Council.

(2) Believe that the revolution associated with the Mass of Vatican II actually subverted the intent of the Council fathers, and hence the pre-Vatican II traditional Latin Mass should be restored.

I don’t see think can have it both ways.

For if a preponderant majority of the world’s bishops, acting in a legitimately convened ecumenical council, actually intended what has since happened to the liturgy—namely, a change in the doctrine of the Mass—how could one reject these doctrines almost universally promulgated by an ecumenical council.

However, if you believe that the Fathers of the council only favored the legitimate liturgical reform that had been advocated by and since Pope Pius X, then you can argue that their actions were only pastoral and not doctrinal. In this case we can agree that the changes associated with the Mass of Paul VI have turned out to be a pastoral error of disastrous proportions.

You screws your head on straight and takes your choice. But you can’t have it both ways, can you?

Anonymous said...

"Forced to toe the line for a seemingly unpopular reassertion of Church teaching on sexual ethics, allowing the growing surge of lay and clerical radicals to have their way in the liturgy may have seemed to be a tolerable compromise, especially when Pope Paul seemed to be going along with all of it as well."

The observation is ascot on in my opinion. A survey of the oldest bishops (but also pastors of large parishes), those active in the late 60s early 70s could be very revealing. Would love to see an anonymous survey of opinions on the subject of such individuals.

.. said...

Prof. Basto,

I understand precisely the point BXVI was trying to make. It is part of the same post-VCII rhetoric we hear ad nauseum.

He says the purpose of the conciliar reform was to "place at the center of Christian life and of pastoral [activity], the celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ."

The fact is that this already existed before the Council. Pre-VCII priests and bishops were not some sort of mindless fossils as we see caricatured today. In fact the Mass was held in higher regard much more before the Council than after as can be proven by mountains of statistics.

Even if one wished to improve upon it further, the last thing one does is to call a Council and issue a document full of ambiguous loopholes. Especially during a time period where negative liturgical experimentation had already begun (see Pius XII's encyclicals) and the innovators were itching for a pretext to go further.

Modest and controlled liturgical reform and reinvogoratoin is best done through tempered and careful Papal directives as was done by Pius X. Not through a vague document from an ecumenical Council opining in pastoral language some general principles that might be nice in the liturgy.

To say that the purpose of the conciliar liturgical document was, to "place at the center of Christian life and of pastoral [activity], the celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ." tells us nothing. These are words that could be said about almost any liturgical initiative. They are a given.

The Pope doesn't seem to realize that the problem in the conciliar document on the liturgy was the document itself (ambiguous nature, no clear directives, open to abuse) rather than the following dismantling of the liturgy by the nameless "disobedient" clerics who
innovated and "hijacked" SC.

And if we buy that Sacrosanctum Concilium was the best thing since sliced bread, the post-Conciliar popes still bear responsibility for both approving the Mass of Bugnini (which was in no way contemplated by SC) and then doing absolutely nothing to stop the "disobedient clerics" as they watched them make a mockery of the liturgy.

It's as if the post-conciliar popes live in an alternate reality where they sit back and lament what is happening as if they have absolutely no power to stop it.

Ahhh, The joy of "collegiality"! I'm waiting to hear the pristine and enlightening purpose of VCII's view of collegiality as well. Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic model of the Church was also meant to somehow "place at the center of Christian life and of pastoral [activity], the celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ."

Anonymous said...

As we discuss the Vatican II liturgical reform, the following from the The Georgia Bulletin ("The Newspaper of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta") may be of interest to Rorate.

http://www.georgiabulletin.org/local/1965/10/28/b/

On the page from the above link, you'll find an article from 1965 entitled "Vast Majority Of Laity Accept Liturgy Reform."

Said article was wrtten by Father McManus, who served as peritus on the Prepatory, Conciliar and Post-conciliar Commissions on the Sacred Liturgy.

At the end of the above link, there are additional liturgical reform-related articles from the 1960s

By the way, Father McManus ended his article from 1965 with the following claim:

The liturgical renewal is "enjoying success and blessing in the United States as elsewhere."

Tom

Henry said...

In regard to the intent of the early 20th century liturgical movement, one of its central figures was Dom Lambert Beauduin, OSB (1873–1960). The NLM recently reprinted a 1914 article in which he outlined the objectives of the liturgical movement, which by the time of Vatican II most bishops probably supported, to the extent that liturgy was any kind of priority with them. In regard to the Mass itself, Dom Beauduin says:

The central idea to be realised by the Liturgical Movement is the following: "To have the Christian people all live the same spiritual life, to have them all nourished by the official worship of holy Mother Church."

Acts of Worship. In this field, the members of the Liturgical Movement desire to contribute with all their strength to attain the following aims:

1. The active participation of the Christian people in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass by means of understanding and following the liturgical rites and texts.


This evidenly means interior prayerful participation, praying the Mass as Pope Pius X urged.

2. Emphasis of the importance of High Mass and of the Sunday parish services, and assistance at the restoration of the collective liturgical singing in the official gatherings of the faithful.

That is, the people singing the Ordinary of the Mass as urged by Pope Pius X. (That is, actual liturgical music as opposed to the hymns that people had already then begun to sing at Mass.)

Anonymous said...

And we all know Fr. McManus couldn't have POSSIBLY been unbiased. He only helped orchestrate the terrible ICEL translation of the NO which is now being revised....

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2161


"In 1960, he became a consultor to the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy (whose secretary was Annibale Bugnini) and was involved in all subsequent stages: peritus at the Council, consultor to the Consilium for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, member of the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) over which he had virtual total control (see flow chart above), and executive officer of the US Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy (BCL), By these memberships, he led the imposition of the vernacular on English-speaking Catholics.

By 1975, all of the liturgical books had been revised and put into the vernacular. Fr. McManus became actively involved in the ecumenical movement with the goal of writing joint texts acceptable to all Christian denominations, and in the revision of the Code of Canon Law, serving as a consultor to the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law (1967-83)."

.. said...

Other notable words of Dom Beauduin...

"At the news of the death of Pius XII, the old Dom Lambert Beauduin, a friend of Roncalli’s (the future John XXIII) confided to Father Bouyer: 'If they elect Roncalli, everything would be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and of consecrating ecumenism.'”

L. Bouyer, Dom Lambert Beauduin, a Man of the Church, Casterman, 1964, pp. 180-181, quoted by Father Dilder Bonneterre in The Liturgical Movement, Ed. Fideliter, 1980, p. 119.

John McFarland said...

Henry,

At some point (I believe after 1914), Dom Beauduin went over to the dark side. Liturgy became the tail, and ecumenism in the bad sense became the dog.

I have no proof, but I strongly suspect that Fr. Bugnini at some point signed up with the ecumenical-liturgical subversion of which Dom Beauduin was the prime mover -- hitched his wagon to its star, if you will.

John McFarland said...

None of the commenters here seems to be aware that "the paschal mystery" on the lips of the makers of the liturgical revolution is a code phrase for a concept of sacrifice that is not propitiary. A corollary of this new concept is that the sacrifice of the Cross, and hence the sacrifice of the Mass, is not a propitiary sacrifice.

For discussions of this point, see the late Fr. Bonneterre's book, The Liturgical Reform, which is mentioned in a previous comment and is available in English from Angelus Press, and the SSPX's "The Problem of the Liturgical Reform," also available from Angelus.

When the Holy Father talks about the paschal mystery, it's the "new" paschal mystery that he's talking about. See in this connection Fr. Patrick de la Rocque's account in the April 2002 Angelus of then Cardinal Ratzinger's liturgical conferences at the Abbey of Fontgombault in the summer of 2001. Father states that His Eminence has adopted this new concept of the paschal mystery, and goes on to criticize it.

Anonymous said...

We have had the New Mass, New Catechism, New Evangelism, New Rosary...and now...

...New History.

According to New History:

1. A radical liturgical revolution followed Vatican II. That much is certain.

2. Beginning with Pope Paul VI, the Popes did not wish for a liturgical revolution...even though they approved the New Mass, Communion in the hand, altar girls, etc.

3. The majority of bishops did not wish for a liturgical revolution...even though they implemented the liturgical revolution.

4. From December 8, 1965, to date, the Popes and bishops have bishops have been powerless in regard to the "authentic" implementation of Vatican II's liturgical directives.

Okay. Sure. Right.

New Mass. New Rosary. New History. Okay. Sure.

Jordanes551 said...

A Paschal Mystery that does not include propitiatory sacrifice is not "Paschal" at all.

Anonymous said...

In 1988, the future Pope Benedict XVI (then-Cardinal Ratzinger) declared the floowing:

"An average Christian without specialist liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung Latin Mass according to the new Missal."

If that is the case, then why are we fighting over the Roman Liturgy?

Why did Pope Benedict XVI issue Summorum Pontificum when he could simply have insisted that the sung Mass of Pope Paul VI would serve perfectly as a traditional Latin Mass?

Is then-Cardinal Ratzinger's declaration correct? I don't know.

Anonymous said...

In 1988, the future Pope Benedict XVI (then-Cardinal Ratzinger) declared the floowing:

"An average Christian without specialist liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung Latin Mass according to the new Missal."


An average Christian perhaps. An average Catholic reading along with their Missal? Hardly.

Anonymous said...

For decades, the party line from Rome and our bishops was that despite a few "shadows" here and there, the overall liturgical "reform" was a smashing success.

Traditional Catholics knew better.

The new Party Line is that the liturgical revolution that the Popes and bishops approved is not the liturgical revolution that the Popes and bishops had desired.

Oooooookay. Suuuuure.

Traditonal Catholics know better.

But should that be important to Traditionalists?

Let us move beyond such things.

The days leading up to the 1960s liturgical revolution...

...whether Protestants helped to form the Novus Ordo...

...what this Pope or that bishop desired for the liturgy in 1963...

...forget about it.

Regardless as to how Pope Benedict XVI and Churchmen (such as Cardinal Burke) loyal to the Pope's liturgical vision for Holy Mother Church present liturgical reform history, we shoulf be thankful that the door that leads to authentic liturgical reform is beginning to open.

Henry said...

""An average Christian without specialist liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung Latin Mass according to the new Missal."

You ask whether this declaration is correct. Of course it is.

And some of the same "average Christians" who attend the Novus Ordo in a round church near me probably could not distinguish between it and a Lutheran service.

So what? (In either case.)

dcs said...

the bishops who approved the liturgical reform of SC at the Council were largely, if not almost wholly, the same ones who furthered much more radical "reforms" in the years after the Council

That is not surprising given that only four of the bishops in attendance at the Council voted against SC. So it stands to reason that those who were responsible for more radical "reforms" after the Council were also in favor of SC. But given the morally universal acceptance of SC (at the time, of course), this is basically a tautology, akin to saying that the bishops who pushed for the liturgical revolution were bishops.

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

"A Paschal Mystery that does not include propitiatory sacrifice is not 'Paschal' at all."

I couldn't agree more.

The same point can be made about other traditional terms that have been given new definitions.

For example:

A freedom and a dignity that does not include cleaving to the truth and the good is no freedom or dignity at all.

A tradition that does not involve handing down the same thing received is no "tradition" at all, and sticking "living" on it just highlights the point. Living things grow. The faith delivered once for all to the saints does not grow.

Catholic teaching that finds no difference between Lutheran justification by faith alone and the Catholic doctrine of justification is not "Catholic" teaching.

Joh said...

As regards then Cardinal Ratzinger's 1988 remarks on the sung Mass:

The more significant and substantive changes are, of course, in the parts that are not sung -- the Offertory and above all in the Canon (beg pardon, Eucharist Prayer alternatives).

Cruise the Groove. said...

"An average Christian without specialist liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung Latin Mass according to the new Missal."

I speak for myself and my wife and several of our aquaintances when I say:
We all have no special liturgical formation, and we have been to both sung Novus Ordo and TLM in Latin, both, and without even a missal know that these two forms of the Roman Rite are worlds apart in difference.

John McFarland said...

Dear dcs,

Here is the real argument, about which there is no tautology.

(1) The bishops who approved SC intended to approve something relatively conservative.

(2) The bishops who approved SC and who were later called upon to accept and implement the liturgical revolution, did so practically to a man.

(3) These bishops, each at some point after SC, saw which way the wind was blowing, and trimmed their sails accordingly.

There is no tautology in any of this.

Nor would there be any tautology in any argument that claimed that most of the bishops favored radical change in approving SC, and that their implementation followed naturally from their radicalism.

John McFarland said...

Dear Anonymous 20:28,

As long as the Holy Father and his successors maintain what is expressed in the original post, the door to genuine reform will remain open only a crack.

JMody said...

Anon/1246:
"Let's be sincere... these positions are not completely faithful to the text of the conciliar documents... but if there is to be a hermeneutic I prefer it to be faithful to tradition than to the text."

Two things there -- FIRST, since it was always stated that this was merely "pastoral" and not doctrinal/dogmatic, that is the proper interpretation. Favor Tradition over the "texts" in event of conflict. SECOND -- Read either of those documents again (DH or SC). They contradict THEMSELVES often enough that you can do ANYTHING and say that you ARE being faithful to the text. This is part of the root of the problem, and this is part of why saying that the Council was fine and all problems stem from interpretation will never lead us to a true solution. We MUST start to analyze very clinically these documents, and we must be willing to amend them or supercede them.

Jordanes551 said...

A tradition that does not involve handing down the same thing received is no "tradition" at all, and sticking "living" on it just highlights the point. Living things grow. The faith delivered once for all to the saints does not grow.

I'm pretty sure St. Vincent of Lerins would not agree, nor does the Faith seem to be "dead" or "unliving" (which is the only thing it could be if it's not "living").

Anonymous said...

I think all the liberals, from Piero Marini on down to the lowliest aged USA nun still trying to push her warped liturgical femminist agenda down every parishes throat, will be having panic attacks, hissy fits, and gastro-intestinal distress over this papal bombshell...which I believe is laying the groundwork for an even bigger mandate of a return to Catholic tradition.
Maybe Pope Benedict XVI has some good surprises and gifts for the Church up his sleeves.
Let us pray.

The Archlaic said...

I'm not asking anyone to suspend reason or critical thinking here, but let's remember what this is - a pope who *knows what he's talking about* when it comes to the liturgy is offering legitimate criticism about the post-Conciliar liturgical re-form. Could anyone imagine Bl. JP II doing that? Or Paul VI?

It took some 50 years to plan this revolution, and maybe 20 to carry it out; now we have a pope who is trying to set things right. A little perspective - and gratitude - would seem appropriate here...

Henry said...

I wonder why so many want to continue discussing endlessly what Vatican II did or did not say. In my own comments in this and a previous thread, I have not tried to suggest what Sacrosanctum Concilium said. (As opposed to my conviction that what happened after the Council was not what the bishops--acting almost unanimously under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit--really intended.)

For the reason that I don't see what difference a notoriously ambiguous document, written a half century ago, makes now.

Whatever it says or said, should not the Church proceed now in the light of a half-century of experimentation, doing what should be done now, irrespective of what it seemed a half-century ago should be done then.

If so, why this endless obsession with what Vatican II really said? Does anyone really care?

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

The Faith lives in the hearts of the faithful. They (please God) grow in Faith; and only in that sense does the Faith grow in them. The Faith as professed today or tomorrow is never different than it was on the day St. John died, in the sense that a butterfly is different from a caterpillar, or an oak from an acorn, or a grown man from a newborn babe. The notion of the Faith as "living" is a classic modernist turn of phrase, used as part of the classic evolutionist modernist doctrines.

Jordanes551 said...

However, history shows that the formal expression of that unchanging Faith grows and develops.

Mr. Ortiz said...

The Paschal Mystery, according to Ratzinger, brings into one the suffering, death, and Resurrection of the Lord.

Calvary without Sunday--problem; Sunday without Calvary--problem.

It's not pernicious as some here would claim.

Or can you find a quotation and source that says Paschal Mystery dispenses with the sacrifice of Christ?

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:
"nor does the Faith seem to be "dead" or "unliving" (which is the only thing it could be if it's not "living").


Things that were never alive cannot become dead; they are neither dead nor alive and never were. Is a stone dead? We must ask, therefore, ewactly what is meant by 'living Faith'. Does this mean that the gift of Faith is constantly changing? That would square with the liberals' ideal of liturgy as "a permanent workshop". The symbol of the liberal--and of the devil of confusion--is the Tower of Babel.

The Faith has a divine source. The source is immutable and the gift, faith, must also be immutable, given St. Thomas's principle of divine contingency. We can learn more about the Faith and that part of our understanding of it which is imperfect can be perfected. But surely, in all essentials, God the Holy Ghost enlightens us so that we can understand truly and surely, even if not commpletely. The Holy Ghost, given His goodness, cannot deceive or be deceived; He can only deliver less than all the truth of any matter at any one time. It would seem, then, that nothing new under the sun can contradict what has been declared by the fathers authoritatively and commonly understood by them in a particular way. So no novel teaching can be valid if it directly contradicts a common understanding by the fathers concerning, say, Quanta Cura.

No, I don't see how faith itself is either living or dead. Were it something that constantly changed of its own accord ("living"), it would be a cause of confusion. like a kaleidoscope which hypnotises the viewer--something like an object loved by a subjectivist, having no sure form. That would be the mark of a malign gift, not a beneficent one. God offers unto us a ROCK of salvation and rocks tend to be constant and sure and unchanging, which is why we make the mensa from stone. But rocks can speak about their own constancy too: If these were silent, yea, even the rocks here would cry out, Hossanna!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"However, history shows that the formal expression of that unchanging Faith grows and develops."

It can also deteriorate and degenerate. Just consider all the ambiguity introduced by little expressions in Vatican II documents. One article is missing from the Latin and, presto!, the Muslims suddenly worship the same God we do--or do they?

So now we get to the hub of the matter. It is not good enough for conciliar documents to be free from doctrinal error. They must also be free from ambiguity and other expressive error. If not, souls can be misled and all manner of confusion followeth. And confusion is a mark of the one who fell from heaven like a luminous star.

One cannot help but notice the searing clarity of the Syllabus of Errors. Not much chance of confusion from there. Error is a kind of wandering (etymologically), and evil hates a straight line or a clear thought.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Everyone here realilses, of course, that McManus was one of the chief revolutionaries of the 1960s. . . . I wouldn't believe him if he told me that he found my wallet and that's how he knew my name.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland:

You are spot on about the Faith. What do Modernist theologians seek to do? They cannot change the object of Faith. Therefore, they try to change the lens through which we see it. The new lens is the error of their subjectivist philosophies. Then they try to say that one can legitimately look at this object, faith, through a variety of lenses. All of them are valid because one does not impart a truer vision than the other. The problem is that the traditional lens, the one in the eye, was the one that God gave us; it was made by Him so that the means of seeing is as true as the object seen. The devil would have us don his glasses, and every time we get used to one pair, he presents us with another. Every one yields a unique image and none of them reveal the beauty God inscribed in the object, faith.

Truth is one; error is multifarious.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I so wish the Holy Father would call things as they are.

In Italy we call this mentality "hiding oneself behind one's finger".

V II has failed, period. The "renewal" was a load of crap and the fruit of the desire to get along with the world. It is better to say so than to try and mask reality with this kind of verbal gymnastics.

Next thing we know, the main purpose of communism will have been to renew capitalism.

Mundabor

Anonymous said...

The faith of a liberal is like an orange. It is a living thing. As it it transmitted from one person to another, it rots.

P.K.T.P.

mico said...

Well, if there is no such thing as a living tradition then there is pretty much no basis in arguing that the old rite organically developed...

Anonymous said...

"I speak for myself and my wife and several of our aquaintances when I say: We all have no special liturgical formation, and we have been to both sung Novus Ordo and TLM in Latin, both, and without even a missal know that these two forms of the Roman Rite are worlds apart in difference."

Therefore, the divide within the Latin Church among those who favor the Novus Ordo vs. those who favor the TLM could not be bridged by simply promoting the Novus Ordo (sung in Latin) as the main Latin rite?

That is a shame.

To repeat, then-Cardinal Ratzinger insisted that only a liturgical specialist would likely possess the ability to distinguish between sung a sung Latin Novus Ordo Mass and sung Traditional Latin Mass.

If then-Cardinal Ratizinger were correct, we could solve the "war" between Trads and Novus Ordoists by simply using one rite — the Novus Ordo sung in Latin.

One Latin Mass (Novus Ordo) for everybody.

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

Quite true again.

Which leads to the basic question: is that truth all that Dei Verbum, "living tradition," etc. are all about?

The answer, I think, is obviously no.

At best, the conciliar and post-conciliar teaching on tradition represents a regression in the presentation of doctrine that has caused tremendous scandal -- which scandal has caused millions their faith.

Even if one could demonstrate that there isn't a heterodox statement in any element of the authentic magisterium since 1962, one cannot avoid the conclusion that that magisterium has produced an unprecedented catastrophe for the Church of God.

Knight of Malta said...

whose purpose, in fact, was not mainly that of changing the rites and the texts

It all depends on whose "purpose" one is speaking of. I would submit that it was the exact purpose of many of the periti and Bishops at Vatican II to change, contort, defile and desecrate that most beautiful of prayers, 2,000 years in the making, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Anonymous said...

One council, many interpretations.

Beltway said...

I'm amazed how we side-step around history and play word games to alter Church Teaching. When I first began to study theology I would have passionately protested that that was not the case. Sadly, the closer one looks into a variety of topics, I don't think that one can easily get around it.

Knight of Malta said...

Old v. New

Joe B said...

Henry, most of us would love that, but the council keeps being referenced as our guiding light by Pope Benedict XVI and every prelate who discusses what we should and should not do now. I would like nothing better than for the Pope to declare its documents to have been pastoral and pertaining only to a time that has now passed (which the Holy Father has more or less said), and so should be ignored from now on (never said), but because those who control change use it to evaluate the appropriateness of that change, it is for us the unwelcome guest who just won't leave.

Eventually it will be ignored, the new mass abandoned, and the TLM exclusively mandated, because the church cannot be meaningfully reformed until all that happens. All things VCII stand like armor in the way of truly beneficial reform, including the very name itself. Simply invoking it squashes reform.

But until that great day, might as well pop the corn and get used to reruns of the council, rancid butter or not.

LeonG said...

There is no surprise in what the pope states here. He is not a supporter of the Traditional Latin Mass but prefers a modern vernacular liturgy which has reverent norms with Latin being used.
Further, the remarks are clearly stated - hs sees liturgical progressivism as every part legitimate as the traditional aspects.
The banalisation of the liturgy by fabricated stealth is partly the result of this bent for such liberal notions as "living tradition" and the recent beatification of liturgical inculturation with its plethora of illicit norms and values gives credence to what we may expect in the future where the liturgy is concerned.

Jordanes551 said...

FYI, Knight of Malta, the URL in your hyperlink has an additional uppercase "L" -- when that is removed, the URL is correct.

Anonymous said...

Eventually it will be ignored, the new mass abandoned, and the TLM exclusively mandated, because the church cannot be meaningfully reformed until all that happens. All things VCII stand like armor in the way of truly beneficial reform, including the very name itself. Simply invoking it squashes reform.

I heartly agree with this and I pray the one fine day - one great day what you say Joe B. will come true. I pray for it. I'm so disenchanted with the estanlish post-council situation in the Church.

The more I become familiar with matters on True Catholic Tradition and the skullduggery that took place behind the scenes during Vatican II and the subsequent disastrous effects that took place in the Church, I marvel that our high level ecclesiastics can continue denying the evidence before there very eyes.

Barbara

Anonymous said...

There were some typing errors in my last comment! Sorry!

Barbara

Paul Haley said...

P.K.T.P. said in part:

Raymond Cardinal Burke must be 'in the know' and notice his recent comment (published on this blog yesterday). He says that a way should be found to implement the m.p. more evenly around the world--to implement it universally. How can this be done? One might insist on a minimum no. of Masses per see as a norm at law but most bishops would simply ignore this. The only effective way is . . . jurisdiction, jurisdiction free of the local obstruc--, I mean, local bishops.

Looks like SP didn't do the trick but a Worldwide Apostolic Administration with its own bishops would certainly do it. Starting off with the SSPX bishops and growing with those bishops in the church already committed to Tradition would be the medicine we need. Problem is...are there any existing bishops in the Church other than those of the SSPX that are committed to Tradition? Well, Your Holiness, we have our doubts.

Mundabor said...

"...then-Cardinal Ratzinger insisted that only a liturgical specialist would likely possess the ability to distinguish between sung a sung Latin Novus Ordo Mass and sung Traditional Latin Mass".

This statement is not correct. I am not a liturgist - much less trained - and can spot the differences without any problem.

Even the OLD Novus Ordo Mass (the first stage of the demolition, so to speak; and the one celebrated every Sunday at the Brompton Oratory) can clearly be recognised as being polluted by Novus Ordo elements: the bidding prayers (or however they are called) and the readings according to the New Missal. Also, no clearly recognisable "introibo" and "Iudica me, Domine", though it might be said by the celebrant in a way not audible by the audience.

If we then talk about the NEW Novus Ordo Mass (the one celebrated everywhere), to celebrate it in Latin doesn't eliminate one single liturgical problem, but it merely gives a thin varnish of Latin to what still is the same Bugnini Mass.

I can't see how the destiny of the Novus Ordo can be other than being forgotten, or remembered only to be ashamed of it.

You can't redeem the Novus Ordo more than you could have redeemed, say, the Austin Allegro. Some things have been born the wrong way and must be simply set aside.

Mundabor

son_of_angels said...

We can either take this statement with hostility or with the open heart that the Holy Father intends. What I read in his comment is that the usus antiquior cannot be disregarded as a legitimate form of celebration on the basis of the Council texts, since, although reform was accepted as a possibility, the reform of the texts themselves was not the goal, but rather a deeper pastoral understanding of them. The fact is that this was already the direction of the first liturgical movement, but it had never been expressed in an ecumenical council.

One can either take it with docility (docilis-Latin for 'teachable') or hostility, the later never being the appropriate response of a Catholic to the Holy Father.

Jordanes551 said...

Mr. McFarland, Mr. Perkins --

I think one would have to be blind or nearly blind not to see that both liturgically and doctrinally, Vatican II's reforms and several at least of its developments (or intended developments) have largely been failures, even disasters. This does not mean that the council's texts are necessarily in error doctrinally or morally, but in terms of ambiguity (some at least of it intentional) and pastoral prudence I think the council's agenda, no matter how well-intentioned, clearly has failed of its stated purpose. The Church, of course, is "stuck" with this Oecumenical Council, and will be until the end of time, despite traditionalists dreams that the Church someday will formally state that it was never what the Church now says it is, a valid, authentic oecumenical council. There can be no such turning back -- the only way out of this awful mess is through. Down the road at some point must (and therefore will) come further clarification and authentic development of the council's teachings (and in some cases even reversal, when it is a matter of prudential judgment rather than non-negotiable teaching), even as we have begun to see correction and repair on the liturgical front.

Anonymous said...

"...they try to change the lens through which we see it."

The lens through which they try to make us view everything, including the past, is called Vatican II.

Delphina

Knight of Malta said...

Thanks Jordanes! Let's try this again:


The Traditional Mass....The New Mass

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this Knight Of Malta!

Barbara

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"but in terms of ambiguity (some at least of it intentional) and pastoral prudence I think the council's agenda, no matter how well-intentioned, clearly has failed of its stated purpose."



I have been saying all along that, with the exception of D.H., all the errors are expressive errors rather than doctrinal errors. But this does not mean that these errors are therefore 'acceptable'. They are noxious and completely unacceptable; they should not even be read by the faithful. The Church has a sacred duty not only to teach the truth but to do so clearly, so that souls may not be lost and the highest law imposed on all of us be obeyed thereby.

What makes you think that the Council was "well-intentioned"? The periti who drew up the formulations were liberals. Their intent was to pervert the Church to their false beliefs and their heresies. God the Holy Ghost impeded them. Therefore, they formulated ambiguous expressions intended for future misinterpretation. That makes those formulations EVIL and not only 'unfortunate'. The formulations of this pastoral Council were EVIL insofar as deliberate error was impliled or included. That is because mendacity and deception are evil. This is a matter of Moral Law and not only one of semantics.

There is no guarnatee from Holy Church that all the formulations are free of error and free of evil intent. We then come to the intent of the majority of the Council fathers and the intent of Pope Paul VI, who signed all the documents (John XXIII did not live to sign any of them). Their intent is for God to decide and, in the case of the bishops, it may have differed widely from bishop to bishop.

When error abounds, whether it is expressive error or more than that, the Church has a sacred duty to remove it so as to safeguard the purity of the Church. So I suggest that a long road lies ahead. On the matter of D.H., the problem seems to be more serious, as Quanta Cura and the Syllabus reflect what has always been held in the Church by all: Q.C. contains teachng that is infallibe in virtue of the ordinary Magisterium. As Michael Davies put it, if D.H. contradicts Q.C., it is the former which will have to be discarded or corrected, not the latter. Of course, it remains to be seen if there is a true contradiction, and it is hopeful that H.H. is tackling the issue of religious freedom as the talks come to an end.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley:

You are on the right track. I think that Cardinal Burke must have this in mind and he may be hinting what is to come.

The bishop to head the structure will likely be ... Joseph Ratzinger. Any diocesan bishop can be secondarily appointed. Logically, the Pope himself could appoint himself to a new see without abandoing the main one. As far as I can see, this would be the one way to get around the nasty concordats the Holy See has signed with France, Austria, Poland and Argentina. The concordats all admit full papal power over the Church insofar as it is direct.

More on this later today perhaps.

I am wondering where on earth is the clarification of S.P. and where on earth the structure is for the Orphans of the Most Holy Redeemer. I don't know of a precedent for granting a religious order a canonical form after all its members have died of old age waiting for the process to be completed. This Pope must have a special deal with the Grim Reaper. Perhaps he offers Reap some Mozart on the piano each evening in exchange for long life. This Pope is 84. If he wants to complete his programme and then lives long enough to ensure its entrenchment, he'd better close the piano and sign some papers!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mico:

Were we discussing living tradition in terms of faith or in terms of liturgy? The two are different.

Again, what do people (mostly neo-cons) mean by a "living tradition"? Since liturgical practices are not animals or angels or humans, they are neither alive nor dead, so they don't mean it literally. One property of life is growth and change. Well, if liturgical forms change organically--that is, if they change but always respecting the integrity of received forms--what is the remote cause of this change? It cannot be the forms themselves, for they are only things. So the cause of organic change must be divine will or else it must be man: one or the other. Tradition itself is not living; rather, the God Who preserves and fosters and develops it is living. It is God Who is living, not tradition.

How is this change made by the Holy Ghost? Over time, he allows development to a certain point of change that respects the received forms--that respects the character and purpose of those forms. But this is not all. Eventually, after fallible men have tested such incremental and 'integral' changes to plumb God's will, legitimate authority decides whether or not to recommend and aprove them. They become universal norms only after the Pope approves them universally or for a region, by concession. So the Holy Ghost is invited to work through human agents but not any agents. Generally, the views of those most learned and humble and holy are respected, and then the dispositions of those whose souls are oriented to the service of God by Holy Orders and propoer jurisdiction. So it is a process and it involves testing. The test is done through the prism of an immutable faith--something that does not change in its object.

Consider the inclusion of the Gloria. It was finally added after having been used for centuries at papal Masses alone (or something to that effect: I'd have to check my notes on that).

Yes, liturgical form can change but the assumption is that what has been established is of divine origin. Therefore, we cannot simply compose alternative forms and substitute them, as the Concilium did in the case of the Offertory. So you don't recreate what God has created and bestowed as a gift. We don't 'compose' liturgy. Just look at the entire tone of Pope St. Pius V"s Bull, "Quo Primum". He uses expressions such as 'we do not dare to touch' and his text is replete with them. His stated purpose was to remove errors and accretions that had crept in by accident over time.

TO BE CONTINUED, P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Continuation, P.K.T.P.

Most liturgical change in the past was additive because that does least violence to existing forms. So the Church added the Gloria and she added the Prayers at the Foot and she added what had been originally priest's private prayers to make our Offertory, and she added the "Placeat Tibi" and the Last Gospel. Some of these things were tested by being used before or after the Mass had begun and then by moving them from sacristy to Altar.

More disruptive are simple deletions, such as the reduction to two lections.

More intrusive still are shortenings, such as the reduction of an original Ektenia to our treble alternating Kyrie. Insertion of text in an existing form is more disruptive, and changing the content of a form is more disruptive again.

In the case of ancient texts, we simply don't know for sure how much development they encompass over any set time. We should assume, therefore, that they are as ancient and as continuous in use as they might be. So we try ot keep our grubby fallen hands off of them.

Organic growth as a principle will also mean that, over time, we need to change less and less. We can only add so much before Mass becomes unpractical in duration. If everything we have received from the Holy Ghost through the fathers is precious and there is a danger in changing anything, the principle, as enunciated at Vatican II (ironically) is that nothing should be changed unless the good of the Church REQUIRES it. Liturgical development is the unfolding of a revelation from the Holy Ghost. But we reach a point at which we can see nearly all He wishes to reveal. It would be fatuous to suggest that Msgr. Bugnini could show us his toy truck and that this would be better; and it is vicious to suggest that forms which were NOT adopted from ancient times when they were composed should be revived. Perhaps the Holy Ghost had a reason for rejecting them centuries ago!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 9.27 writes:

"If then-Cardinal Ratizinger were correct, we could solve the "war" between Trads and Novus Ordoists by simply using one rite — the Novus Ordo sung in Latin.

One Latin Mass (Novus Ordo) for everybody."


Well, if the purpose of the Council was to 'renew' the Faith in all her forms, and if, for most, a sung N.O. in Latin is indistinguishable from its predecessor, then the reforms have failed in liturgy.

But if the two are the same to most people, then obviously we should keep the Mass of 1,700 years, not the one cobbled up by Bugnini. The problem cannot be solved this way. The prayers of the New Mass are different and so they will affect the Sermon and catechesis differently--as they will affect the celebrant differently.

In all obvious ways, the New Mass seems to be a Protestant Lord's Supper and not a Catholic Sacrifice of Christ to the Father to make accessible to us and the dead the fruits of the Redemption. That *apparent' change in meaning is rather important, no?

So if the two animals are indistinguishable to the casual by-stander, I'll take the genuine article, thank you. It should do good to heart and head when your soul is in my soul's stead.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Sorry: I wrote live, not "lives" in my last post but then miscorrected. Sometimes correction is itself a mistake, but Vatican II would not fall into that category!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"One property of life is growth and change."

On the contrary, I'd say, the characteristic of a living thing is that it acts (lives) to preserve its integrity, its wholeness, its self. Inanimate (dead) things change, namely they rot, crack, disperse into the earth, etc.

Jordanes551 said...

Inanimate (dead) things change, namely they rot, crack, disperse into the earth, etc.

Which is another way of saying that not all change is good. But it is nevertheless undeniable that, speaking of this world at least, "One property of life is growth and change." God, of course, has life inherent, but does not change. Neither do the angels, once they made their choice either for the Light or the Darkness. So just because something is living, that does not mean it is subject to change.

What makes you think that the Council was "well-intentioned"?

Because Blessed John XXIII and the lamentable Pope Paul VI, and the Council Fathers, expressed good intentions, and to the conciliar popes, and to most of the Council Fathers, I have no reason to impute evil motives or duplicity.

The periti who drew up the formulations were liberals. Their intent was to pervert the Church to their false beliefs and their heresies. God the Holy Ghost impeded them.

Even liberals can have good intentions, despite the fact that their beliefs and philosophy bring evil rather than good.

Jordanes551 said...

Someone once told me that President Truman said, "One of the worst things you can say about a man is that he meant well."

LeonG said...

When my children were very young and they witnessed their first Latin Mass & then sung Mass they were absolutely surprised that the sung NO one they had been going to before came from the same church. Out of the mouths of babes - indeed, they better than most can discern the difference. The two forms are effectively two rites that have almost nothing in common. One embodies the Roman Catholic Faith over its entire liturgical history while the other is an aberrant fabricated novelty.
Its emergence after the councils attests to the radical liberal disorientation that those councils gave birth to and consolidated formally. The sooner it vanishes the better it will be for mankind.

Knight of Malta said...

The Church, of course, is "stuck" with this Oecumenical Council, and will be until the end of time, despite traditionalists dreams that the Church someday will formally state that it was never what the Church now says it is, a valid, authentic oecumenical council

Very true Jordanes. I like Charles Coulombe's opinion on the matter:

“So, you might ask your author whether or no Vatican II was really an Ecumenical Council. Well, all the Catholic bishops were gathered to solemnly deliberate; the fact that it was all for naught in terms of dogma is beside the point. Those who demand that the Holy See one day openly disavow it ignore history. What is more likely to happen is that, after the present crisis is surmounted, it will be flushed down the memory hole with Constantinope II, Constance, and Basel. Present on the lists forever as: “21st Ecumenical Council: Vatican II, 1962-65, Dealt with pastoral problems.” There safely filed, scholars in 2567 will breeze over it to look at more impressive and important Councils, just as we breeze by Lateran V to look at Trent.

Paul VI was not unaware that things were out of control at the Council. He took decisive action there: he wept.” [Puritan's Empire, 513-514, emphasis added.]

Anonymous said...

somewhat I would agree with the funny (peculiar) poster typing : "words".
Where are the ... acts ? I'm searching for the beginning of a reform of the 1964-1970 revolution but pope Benedict XVI was elected in ... 2005, 6 years from now.
The one and only minor reform was a bad one : multiplying the formulas at the end of the Mass.

Fr. Louis Bouyer, one of those who fabricated the Novus Ordo Missae and suffered doing this, wrote in his unedited - but there is a plan to do so in English - Memoirs that the N.O. would need a complete reshuffle/rewriting sooner or later to restore the link with the traditional Roman rite and keeping the best from the Liturgical movement from Pius X to John XXIII.

He was a prophet. Alas this pope who is an admirer of Fr. Bouyer and paid regular homage to his thoughts has so far done nothing to begin this immense liturgical worksite.
Correcting the awful translations (English but we are still waiting for the other languages) is nice but it leaves intact the shortcomings of the Novus Ordo.
The more Rome is waiting to act, the more it is dfficult to do so in the right sense : be certain the neo-mods and litniks would not wait a second to mutilate, wreckovate, ridicule the holy Liturgy. Neo-mods and litniks are very active in Europe and Northern America still, plus Asia and some Europeanly trained African hierarchs.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

I'm not sure who said it. Was it Sir Winston Churchill of Clement Attlee? He said, "He was a humble man--and he had much to be humble about". It fits Paul VI rather well. It might not fit John Paul II as well: only the latter clause would fit him.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Even liberals can have good intentions, despite the fact that their beliefs and philosophy bring evil rather than good."

Yes, but liberals can also have objectively diordered intentions, and even evil intentions. And so can liberal bishops.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Someone or other wrote:

"On the contrary, I'd say, the characteristic of a living thing is that it acts (lives) to preserve its integrity, its wholeness, its self. Inanimate (dead) things change, namely they rot, crack, disperse into the earth, etc.?"

I wrote that living things grow and change. I did not mention what they act to do. But a standard characteristic of life is growth and change tha tis generated from within. So my analogue stands.

And on the contrary to you: dead things don't grow.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Knight of Malta: I agree with your comment on Lateran V. Lateran IV, on the other hand, was MUCH more important than Vatican II. Postconciliar bishops should be forced to quote from Lateran IV every time they burp, which is about how oftern they quote like jackasses from Vatican II.

The problem of these endless quotes from that useles Council, Vatican II, might be to administer an electrid shock to each bishop every time he quotes from it.
P.K.T.P.

Knight of Malta said...

The problem of these endless quotes from that useles Council, Vatican II, might be to administer an electrid shock to each bishop every time he quotes from it.
P.K.T.P.


Too true. I wish that they would quote from a truly dogmatic council, such as Trent, from time-to-time. I don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that there even might be a few Bishops out there who have never heard of Trent.

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

The best that can be said about the documents of Vatican II is that they represent doctrinal retrogression (what you diplomatically style "ambiguity") that has given rise to a Church that has been deserted by millions, and most of whose current members have an understanding of the Faith that is full of ignorance and error. The question of whether some of the statements in those documents are materially heretical is almost irrelevant; things could not be much worse, doctrinally and in the life of the Church, if some of the statements are heretical.

As for "prudence": the prudence of Vatican II is the prudence of the flesh. It was to a considerable degree an exercise in (1)kowtowing to the dominant political and intellectual currents of its time, and (2)rationalizing that kowtowing.

Yes, Vatican II happened. But to say that we must go forward "through" Vatican II is another exercise in the prudence of the flesh -- politics, not religion.

Anything that has caused such tremendous evil must be rejected root and branch. The only genuine prudential issue in the matter is whether, come the restoration, it will need to be preached against, or just ignored.

I therefore am stupified by your thinking that we must have "development" from doctrine whose inadequacy (to say no more) and evil results are evident?

So we must start with Vatican II and work our way to -- where?

To pre-1962 doctrine? That is, from Rahner, Congar, et al. back to Trent?

Or on to wherever the Holy Ghost leads us? That is, taking the baton from Rahner, Congar et al. and running the next lap to wherever?

Jordanes551 said...

The best that can be said about the documents of Vatican II is that they represent doctrinal retrogression (what you diplomatically style "ambiguity")

No, that's not the best that can be said. Holy Mother Church's statements at her council are uneven in clarity -- they're not bad through and through.

The question of whether some of the statements in those documents are materially heretical is almost irrelevant; things could not be much worse, doctrinally and in the life of the Church, if some of the statements are heretical.

That's a foolish thing to say. If the Church of God has issued heretical statements, especially at one of her general councils, things would be a great deal worse than they are now.

Yes, Vatican II happened. But to say that we must go forward "through" Vatican II

I didn't say that.

is another exercise in the prudence of the flesh -- politics, not religion.

No, it's just acceptance of reality. It will be impossible to cope with and move on from the present crisis is we pretend nothing that has happened in the life of the Church since 1963 really counts or is of any importance. Living in a fantasy world is not living the Catholic faith.

Anything that has caused such tremendous evil must be rejected root and branch.

However, as you know, the Church is incapable of rejecting one of her general councils root and branch, so you're just going to have to put that notion out of your mind.

The only genuine prudential issue in the matter is whether, come the restoration, it will need to be preached against, or just ignored.

It will not be preached against, nor completely ignored -- though practically speaking most Catholics will be able to "ignore" it. After all, most Catholics don't have to be fully aware of and expert in all the proceedings and decrees and acts of any of council. How much more a pastoral council convened primarly to address passing cultural concerns? But not even failed councils like Vienne and Lateran V are completely ignored by the Church.

I therefore am stupified by your thinking that we must have "development" from doctrine whose inadequacy (to say no more) and evil results are evident?

If the council's doctrine was inadequately expressed, all the more reason why the Church would have to develop and complete that expression.

So we must start with Vatican II and work our way to -- where?

We must not "start" with Vatican II at all. We must start, as always, with Jesus and His Church.

To what must we work? To the fullness of truth, as always.

To pre-1962 doctrine? That is, from Rahner, Congar, et al. back to Trent?

No. The Church's history only flows in one direction, and never stops at any moment in time.

Or on to wherever the Holy Ghost leads us? That is, taking the baton from Rahner, Congar et al. and running the next lap to wherever?

Obviously. It's what the Church has always done and will always do.

It's not as if one bungled council and botched liturgical reform could render God's Providence ineffective and falsify His promises to the Church, or cancel His mission, or fundamentally alter Her essence and identity.

As for Rahner, Congar, et al., it's especially necessary to take the baton from them, since quite often they ran with the baton off the path and into a ditch.

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

1. "If the Church of God has issued heretical statements, especially at one of her general councils, things would be a great deal worse than they are now."

The foregoing seems to imply that a council that is both ecumenical and "pastoral" cannot err.

I don't see why that is the case. It seems to me obvious as regards "pastoral," either

(1) it signifies a council that was not purporting to teach infallibly except insofar as it repeated infallible doctrine; or

(2) nobody knows for sure what it means, or what its implications are.

Either way, I see no reason to think that if Vatican II erred, I need to find myself a new religion, or give up on religion as a bad job.

2. "Acceptance of reality," when that "reality" has caused the Church unprecedented harm, is politics and not religion, and about the most egregious example of prudence of the flesh that I can imagine.

3. "However, as you know, the Church is incapable of rejecting one of her general councils root and branch, so you're just going to have to put that notion out of your mind."

I don't understand what you mean. If you mean that one cannot reject any infallible doctrine contained in the pronouncements of the Council, that's true. But so what? The issue is the non-infallible pronouncements. As regards the infallible pronouncements, since they are already recognized as such, one does not have to appeal to Vatican II in teaching them. As regards the non-infallible pronouncements, if they are unsound, they must be rejected or left in silence, as prudence dictates.

4. I am aware that time moves in only one direction. But I am also aware that revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle, and that since that time the doctrines of the Church have been taught infallibly.

So here's my question: to the extent that Vatican II and the subsequent conciliar magisterium is inadequate, misleading or wrong,

(A) Do we have to start where Vatican II left off, and by some program (of which you owe us a description) get back on the right track; or

(B) May we deal with, for example, the inferiorities of Vatican II to Trent by just going back to Trent?

If your answer is (A), please give another try at explaining your reasoning, because the fact that time doesn't move backward is not an explanation.

As we move forward in time, there I can see no problem with returning to sound doctrine propounded earlier in time.

Anonymous said...

The Church compromised with the world and the world ate our lunch. Period.

V2 is indeed a failed and useless council. How do you estimate the damage done from/resulting from/ directly attributed to V2? Would you say centuries of damage, millions and million of lost souls, irreparable harm?

We have no vocations and the hierarchy does not know what to do about it.

All those priests that abused young people and the Bishops that protected them are criminals.

Lets call a spade a spade and a Judas priest and a hireling just what they are.

More house cleaning is needed pdq.

Mr. MacFarland, perhaps the next lap begins with a thorough house cleaning so that parents are no longer afraid nor ashamed to give their sons and daughters to the Church for priestly and religious vocations.


W.Hagons

Luka said...

I believe that one and only one thing can do more for the liturgy of Church than any Instruction on SP, any speech, interpretation, clarification...

I am talking about Pope publicly offering the Tradional Latin Mass. How long should we be waiting for that to finaly happen?

However, I personaly believe that this pope would nothing like more than that, but he is probably aware of all the consequences (more than any of us), and he doesn't find it prudent at the moment.

Oremus pro beatissimo papa nostro Benedicto!!

Knight of Malta said...

'though practically speaking most Catholics will be able to "ignore" it.'

Agreed!

Though a valid, misplaced, modernistic pastoral council, that the Holy Spirit flew away from, so to speak; why don't we brush it from our sandals, and get on with more important business. Vatican was a modernistic experiment gone terribly wrong!

But, with every evil comes a greater good, according to Erasamus, and others.

Strangely, God does not allow an evil unless a greater good can come from it.

Strange to say, but the nazi-esque liberal bishops who forbid the Latin Mass are giving seed to it!

You can't hold-down Truth anymore than you can the seed of life!

Jordanes551 said...

1. "If the Church of God has issued heretical statements, especially at one of her general councils, things would be a great deal worse than they are now."

The foregoing seems to imply that a council that is both ecumenical and "pastoral" cannot err.


No, it doesn't. It is impossible to get "a council that is both ecumenical and 'pastoral' cannot err" out of what I said -- which is that the situation we are in would be even more dire if the Church issued heretical statements at Vatican II.

And by the way, it is impossible for a council not to be "pastoral."

Either way, I see no reason to think that if Vatican II erred, I need to find myself a new religion, or give up on religion as a bad job.

That's nice, but it doesn't particularly have anything to do with what I said.

2. "Acceptance of reality," when that "reality" has caused the Church unprecedented harm, is politics and not religion, and about the most egregious example of prudence of the flesh that I can imagine.

No, it's not politics. It's just sanity. Clenching one's eyes and fists and repeating over and over again that the real is unreal will not make the real unreal. The necessary first step to addressing a reality that has caused the Church harm is to admit that it is reality. Acting like Vatican II never happened, or hoping that someday the Church will say, "Well, we didn't really mean it when we said that council is valid and authentic," is nothing but fantasy and wishful thinking. It is never going to happen.

3. "However, as you know, the Church is incapable of rejecting one of her general councils root and branch, so you're just going to have to put that notion out of your mind."

I don't understand what you mean. If you mean that one cannot reject any infallible doctrine contained in the pronouncements of the Council, that's true.


No, that's not what I mean. I mean exactly what I said -- the Church is incapable of, as you want the Church to do, rejecting Vatican II "root and branch" -- that is, proclaiming that everything Vatican II said and did was a mistake, was false, was erroneous.

If that's not what you want the Church to do, then perhaps you just don't know what it means to reject something "root and branch."

Jordanes551 said...

to the extent that Vatican II and the subsequent conciliar magisterium is inadequate, misleading or wrong,

(A) Do we have to start where Vatican II left off, and by some program (of which you owe us a description)


What an unsettlingly peculiar thing to say. Mr. McFarland, you owe us a description of it as much as I do. Where would you get the notion that I "owe" anyone a description of the program the Church is to follow, or that I even have the charism and divine right to try to formulate one?

You do know that we two are just a couple of laymen voicing opinions, right? I don't know about you, but God hasn't tapped me on the shoulder and instructed me to tell the Church what she must do.

get back on the right track; or

(B) May we deal with, for example, the inferiorities of Vatican II to Trent by just going back to Trent?


The Church has to address everything that comes her way, including this serious crisis. Like it or not, Vatican II happened and we are living after that council, not before it. There is no going back to Trent and starting over from there, and there is no going back to Vatican II (or Vatican I, or any other council) and starting over from there. We carry on from where we are today, not from where we were in the 1500s or in 1870 or in 1963. The Church can't pretend Vatican II never happened. If there are problems in that council's texts (and there are), those problems will have to be addressed. How and when she does that, I can't say, except that she has already, slowly, begun to do that, and that there's no doubt that there will never be a blanket rescinding of the council nor a formal condemnation.

Brian said...

Like it or not, Vatican II happened and we are living after that council, not before it. There is no going back to Trent and starting over from there, and there is no going back to Vatican II (or Vatican I, or any other council) and starting over from there. We carry on from where we are today, not from where we were in the 1500s or in 1870 or in 1963. The Church can't pretend Vatican II never happened. If there are problems in that council's texts (and there are), those problems will have to be addressed.

What the heck are you talking about?

Certainly, any pope, any bishop, any priest, any father of his family, without denying that Vatican II happened and without going back in time,

can look at the confusion and loss of faith over the past forty-plus years, and

can put his copy of the documents of Vatican II in box in the basement and

can carry on from today by teaching from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Jordanes551 said...

Sure, Brian -- but that wouldn't stop everyone else from referring to the council and drawing upon its texts.

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

"Acting like Vatican II never happened, or hoping that someday the Church will say, 'Well, we didn't really mean it when we said that council is valid and authentic,' is nothing but fantasy and wishful thinking. It is never going to happen."

V2 happened; I think that we are in agreement there.

V2 was duly called and held. If that is what you mean by "valid and authentic," we are also in agreement there.

If that is all that you intended to say, I think we're done, although we don't seem to have done much.

Is that all that you intended to say?

If not, please continue.

Athunes said...

In 1988, the future Pope Benedict XVI (then-Cardinal Ratzinger) declared the floowing:

"An average Christian without specialist liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung Latin Mass according to the new Missal."


BAHAHAHA! With all due respect, that is ridiculous.