Monday, October 29, 2012


Since we now believe that the Council Father's didn't want to turn the Liturgy upside down but simply continue the liturgical renewal of the 20th century especially what had been officially accomplished in the 1950's by Pope Pius XII. We nonetheless got a liturgy that was manufactured by the committee Pope Paul VI established. So it is the normative liturgy of the Church.

Although there is foment to revise the revised liturgy and make or more like the 1962 missal, what can be done within the liturgical norms of the normative Mass apart from a total revision and making the 1962 missal the true template of that revision?

1. Seriousness and precision in ritual must be the starting point. Say or sing the black and observe the red is the foundation. The problem here is that there isn't enough red, the rubrics of the Mass are lacking or seem to presume some of the rubrics of its predecessor the 1962 missal.

2. With that said, then we need to choreograph the Mass as the 1962 missal made clear apart from the revised specifics in the revised GIRM and rubrics.

3. Ad Orientem is allowed and was never abrogated. The recovery of this will go a long way in showing forth the continuity of the 1962 missal and its revision.

4. The recovery of the official chants of the Mass at the Entrance, offertory and Communion and in chant fashion, based upon Gregorian chant will also be fruitful.

5. Proper liturgical formation of the laity is critical also. They should know that their actual participation demands that they be attentive to the actions of the Mass, that of what is happening at the altar and that which is required of them given their gifts and disposition. I personally feel that a lay person who consciously decides not to be vocal in spoken and sung responses in protest to these commits at least a venial sin in doing so and perhaps mortal.

6. One of the greatest mistakes and crimes against the continuity of the Liturgy was the iconoclasm of the Catholic sanctuary and magnificent sanctuaries after Vatican II all of which was completely unnecessary and done so only at the behest of progressive liturgists and companies that could profit off of all the rearrangement of things and the destruction of traditional art and altars. The revised liturgy could just as well have been celebrated in traditional sanctuaries with altar railings and kneeling to receive Holy Communion.


Andy Milam said...

"We nonetheless got a liturgy that was manufactured by the committee Pope Paul VI established."

Actually, "the committee" was formed in 1948. And it was the brainchild of Bugnini. (I would hate to think that anyone would think there is revisionist history going on.)

"...what can be done within the liturgical norms of the normative Mass apart from a total revision..."

Nothing. I think that the horse is so far out of the barn that there is no bringing her back. I think that it will take a total revision of the Mass. I think that is what Benedict thinks as well, but doesn't have the gumption to do anything about it. He doesn't know how to move it out of the realm of the hypothetical and it remains largely an academic exercise, for now. Sure he's made some cosmetic changes, but mostly they are non-starters.

The Novus Ordo or Missa Normativa (if you would like to call it that) is such an aberration from that which was intended that there is no way to "really" save it. Too many liberties have been taken. Too many abuses have be normalized. To simply turn the altars around and put boys in cassock and surplice is to simply put lipstick on a pig at this point.

I am all for an authentic "reform of the reform." But...and this is a very big BUT...there must actually be a reform. Not academic, not hypothetical or even theoretical, there must be an actual reform. That Father McDonald, must come in a total revision of the Novus Ordo and re-application of the 1962 Missale.

So, my thoughts would be very simple.

1. Abrogate the Novus Ordo
2. Return to the TLM.
3. Engage in truly scientific methodology with regard to the Mass (hypothesis, theory, action)
4. Act upon the methodology in a way which is shares true continuity with the TLM.

There you have it. Easy peasy. Except that the liberals won't allow it to actually happen, because their "hard work" to undermine the liturgical life and ultimately the entire life of Holy Mother Church would be dashed.

This is by and large the problem with the whole of the so-called liturgical movement. It was based upon a false premise. There was never a "renewal," but rather a revisionist attitude from the start. When we admit this as being true, then we can start the real work of restoring and reforming the Mass.

Anonymous said...

Gotta ask Father:

Where is that church in the photo? I'll bet I can guess the name: Our Lady of Perpetual Star Trek.

Henry Edwards said...

"I think that is what Benedict thinks as well, but doesn't have the gumption to do anything about it."

Such a remark is unfair to our good Holy Father. He realizes that, unfortunately, there is insufficient respect for Church law and discipline among the errant clerical generations, still in control of most Church governance, for any far-reaching reform to be carried out at the present time, even if ordered by the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

Cardinal Burke: anti-canonical priestly culture devastated Church after Vatican II

"After I began my studies of Canon Law in September of 1980, I soon learned how much the Church's discipline was disdained by her priests, in general," he recounted. , , ,

"The 'hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,' which has tried to hijack the renewal mandated by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council . . . and has had a particularly devastating effect on the Church's discipline," he continued. . . .

The years of a lack of knowledge of the Church's discipline and even of a presumption that such discipline was no longer fitting to the nature of the Church indeed reaped gravely harmful fruits in the Church.For example, I think of the pervasive violation of the liturgical law of the Church . . .

"From the above considerations, it should be clear that the knowledge of and respect for canonical discipline is indispensable to the Church's response to the call to a new evangelization," he added. "Liturgical law must enjoy the primacy among canonical norms, for it safeguards the most sacred realities in the Church."

brian said...

To embellish a bit what Andy suggests, I think it would be very fruitful to continue to have the OF and EF... but the definition of each would be slightly different than what is is now. EF would be the TLM as it is currently unchanged, but the OF should be a vernacular-Latin version of the 1962 missal.

rcg said...

Notwithstanding the obvious the biggest difference in my '62 and the Gen III I got from Midwest Theological Forum is the prayers. That defines, for me, what went wrong after Vat II. If we accept that it could have been done better, ala St Joseph Ordinary done Extraordinarily, then we have to accept that it does not have to be and allows for all sorts of Extemporaneous Forms to metastasize. I like the cycle of Biblical readings and even, to some extent, the selection of Eucharistic Prayers, although not all. I enjoy just browsing my '62 reading the many prayers and am grateful for those compositions. If I can at least categorise my own need I can find a prayer for it that lifts my supplication and even helps *ME* see it more clearly. The Gen III, not so much, although it is very good in many regards, such as the preparation for Pennance and Confession as well as a general explanation of the Christian Doctrine. But is still does not hold a candle to the '62 in these areas, for the prayers guide you through contemplation and preparation and CONFIDENCE for forgiveness of a contrite soul, just as the order of Mass does. That is not as apparent in the OF nor in the Gen III missals I have seen.

Gene said...

Anonymous, I thought that Church was a model of the whale's mouth that swallowed Jonah...LOL!

John Nolan said...

More like a great white shark that has swallowed a jacuzzi, an ironing board, a sundial and a chair specially built for someone who is morbidly obese.

John Nolan said...

Father, reference your fifth paragraph, should I refuse to join in a catchy refrain in protest against its musical banality or liturgical impropriety, am I really condemning my soul to eternal damnation? It's just as well I try to avoid the occasion of sin by insisting on Mass in Latin.