POPE FRANCIS MODELING IRREVERSIBLE VATICAN II LITURGICAL REFORM IN CONTINUITY
I did not find Father Forte's comment at PrayTell.
Agree with Father Forte as well. Feehily writes just to advance his own personal agenda prefixed with a papal title he probably would not have been able to bring himself to utter during Benedict's papacy.
This discussion is pointless, both here and at PrayTell. I've given the Novus Ordo as much an effort as most—both attending and defending it daily for many years, seriously studying its propers daily in both English and Latin, investing my all in conscious prayerful participation. For the most part, I've been fortunate to attend OF Masses celebrated by TLM competent priests celebrating the OF--sometimes ad orientem and kneeling for reception--in a traditional manner with never anything resembling an abuse.But a permanent head in the sand gains nothing. The new form is never--however it is celebrated--going to inspire and sustain authentic Catholic belief and practice generally. It encourages and virtually guarantees a different belief system than does the traditional Mass. It's no accident that most OF attenders are--in the phrase of Cardinal George--simply Protestants who attend Mass on Sunday. This result was the expressed intention--explicit in Bugnini's memoir, for instance--of the framers of the Novus Ordo, and they did their work well. Their new liturgy has been far more effective--suppressing traditional belief and practice in a mere half century--than was the brutal repression of Elizabethan England.
Fr. Fox, evidently I saw and copied Fr. Forte's cooment to Jack's before Fr. Anthony saw it which he removed. Narrow mindedness????
Fr McD: "Narrow mindedness????"Yes, but also Modernist intolerance.Henry:Rather than reform the liturgy, Bugnini and his gang were intent on deforming it in the way you specify. But I would also not let the Council get away with things either. The Modernists succeeded in having the documents of Vatican II rendered in a prose style that accommodates enough ambiguity so that they could further their Modernist agenda at a later time since their agenda would never have been accepted by the vast majority of the Fathers at the time of the Council. This is especially true of the document on the liturgy which is full of ambiguities as opposed to normal councils which used precise legal language for their anathemas.
The Servant of the servant of the servant of God removed them. Never existed. If the NO remains, it might be, in the distant future, reserved for ecumenical services hosted in Catholic parishes. "Now, when the Reverend Playfair comes 'round I want everyone to pray like Protestants."
"Father" Anthony Ruff is a typical liberal fascist, crushing dissenting opinions. I suspect he does this because he lacks the intellectual heft to respond intelligently. I ignore "Pray Sniff."
The irony is that Fr. Jack Feehily would not subscribe to the account of liturgical reform as organic growth which Francis presents in that speech, nor to the liturgical theology of that speech which maintains that Christ is present more fully in consecrated gifts, than in the assembly of the faithful (basic Catholic teaching but a controversial statement on Pray Tell).
Feehily is a priest? Yikes, another Vatican Disaster II legacy
When I first read that post I thought it had to be satire. My post to that effect was of course deleted by Fr Ruff.I just posted this response to Fr Feehily, which will no doubt also be deleted:"The New order of Mass...is followed by somewhere in the neighborhood of 99% of Catholics. "But you realise, father, that's (a) because most of us don't have a choice, and (b) an awful lot of people stopped attending church because of the Novus Ordo. I was nearly 50 (!) before it was possible to regularly attend a Tridentine Mass; now I live within driving distance of 2 parishes that offer it and within walking distance of an SSPX chapel. But not everyone is that lucky.What baffles me is why we can't let people worship in the way that works best for them. Enforcing "unity" is no virtue. I suspect it all comes down to spiritual pride--the hierarchy is unable to admit it can make mistakes. That's what I call the Spirit of Vatican One.
Who is Virginia?
I talked today with a person who works at a "vibrant" Dallas, Texas, parish...vibrant as the parish has a wealth of lay ministries.The person in question informed me that Saturday/Sunday Mass attendance at said "vibrant" parish is in the teens...about 17 percent assist regularly at Mass.The parish in question is "conservative."17 percent Mass attendance.Unfortunately, the Dallas Diocese will not permit the TLM to spread beyond the FFSP parish in Irving, Texas.However, the reality is that the Novus Ordo is here to stay. Sunday Mass attendance in the teens will not spur bishops to return to the TLM to Latin Church parishes.Oh, well.Pax.Mark Thomas
Like Henry, forty years ago I would have defended the Novus Ordo. Indult Masses in the Tridentine Rite were few and far between, and I thought the criticism of the NO by Michael Davies was exaggerated. The new Mass had left the musical structure more or less intact, and could be sung in Latin (as the London Oratory and Westminster Cathedral demonstrated - in those days the weekday capitular Mass at the Cathedral was still celebrated at the high altar, ad apsidem, with deacon and subdeacon, at 10.30 am). No fewer than sixteen central London churches advertised a sung Latin Mass every Sunday, and even in the provinces, where parishes had retained their choirs after 1965, it could still be found. I imagined that it was the best one could reasonably hope for.I still attend the sung Latin OF Mass on average once a month, but now the older Rite is much more widely available, it is possible to make comparisons, and I'm afraid the EF wins hands down, although there are strong similarities between the two. I think Bugnini suspected this; he observed that his new Mass would take two generations to become fully accepted, and in the meantime the Old Rite must be suppressed. This doesn't show a lot of confidence in his product, and it is interesting to speculate what would have happened had SP come out 30 years earlier.There were rumours that Papa Luciani was thinking along these lines, but his unexpected death put paid to them, and his successor, despite his many qualities, had other priorities.Pace Mark Thomas, the TLM in Texas does not require diocesan permission. Ten years after SP I'm surprised no-one has taken advantage of its provisions.
The Novus Ordo parishes have shed and continue to shed parishioners in staggering numbers. Now they may be nominally enrolled but they are not showing up. But the bishops and many priests continue in their denial that people are no shows because there is "no there, there." Great job Bugnini! THis does makes us like our Protestant brethren. It appears the EF communities may be the only ones around in 100 years. They certainly seem to have the young and the committed.
John Nolan said..."Pace Mark Thomas, the TLM in Texas does not require diocesan permission. Ten years after SP I'm surprised no-one has taken advantage of its provisions."Mister Nolan, peace and good health to you and your family.The word throughout the Dallas Diocese is that the implementation of Summorum Pontificum is not to be exercised outside the FSSP's Irving, Texas, Mater Dei parish.My understand it that a bishop can make life difficult for a priest who does not march in lockstep with his bishop.Perhaps Bishop Burns is open to the authentic implementation of Summorum Pontificum...I don't know.Anyway...outside the FSSP parish in question, Summorum Pontificum is a dead letter in the Dallas Diocese.Pax.Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas, a bishop that does that is corrupt and unworthy of their office. They should resign and go into social work
Post a Comment