Tuesday, August 13, 2019

THE PROBLEM WITH PROGRESSIVE LITURGISTS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE ORDINARY FORM, WORSHIP ISN'T THE PRIMARY FOCUS


Over at Praytell, Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB comes clean:



I grant that church law allows for the 1962 Mass, though I do not see how that accords Sacrosanctum Concilium, which clearly intended that the one and only form of the Roman rite would be reformed and be the only form henceforth celebrated.
I do not believe that the 1962 Mass expresses the nature of the Church adequately, as V2 said the liturgy should do. Neither did the Fathers of Vatican II. That is why I will not celebrate it. I only celebrate the reformed rite.
Progressives are authoritarian and pontificate in an infallible way a particular interpretation of Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium. He's that dreaded fundamentalist when it comes to a particular interpretation of a Church document. 
But that's not the worst of it. He won't celebrate the 1962 Missal because it does not fit into his fundamentlistic understanding of a Church document which, let's keep in mind, no pope had declared a particular interpretation to be the only interpretation and thus dogmatic and in fact the opposite is true, one can hold a variety of opinions which is  the problem with this document. 
My biggest concerns with this type of dogmatic ideology expressed by Fr. Anthony and so many others in the Church who are progressive/heterodox is that for them the Liturgy is about ecclesiology as though the Church worships ecclesiology and the nature of the Church. What rubbish! 
How many Catholics go to Mass to praise and worship the nature of the Church. Wouldn't that be heretical? Wouldn't that be anti-Catholic? Wouldn't that be blasphemy?
But that, my friends, is the problem with the Ordinary Form and the fundamentalists who are so narrow minded about the Extraordinary Form. 

15 comments:

Cletus Ordo said...

So what exactly is "reformed" about the Novus Ordo?

Those who are so slavishly attached to the Ordinary Form of the Mass always cite Vatican II, but wasn't Vatican II a PASTORAL council? One always hears the news media and various "progressives" citing the "reforms" of Vatican II, but reform was not the aim of the council. If you are seeking reforms, you turn to the Council of Trent. Trent is loaded with anathemas for those who reject its reforms. The "pastoral" Second Vatican Council doesn't have one anathema, yet its devotees treat the mildest disagreement with their interpretation of the so-called "reforms" as schismatic betrayals.

The very assertion that the Mass of 1962 does not adequately express the nature of the Church is beyond laughable. That's like saying a full meal with all the major food groups is not as nutritious as a vitamin pill. One need only compare and contrast the prayers of the Novus Ordo with the Extraordinary Form to see how utterly stripped down the Ordinary Form truly is. Yes, the rowboat WILL float, but I feel far safer boarding the battleship.

Finally, this priest's comments are a slap in the face to all of the great saints who were formed by this Mass. Without getting into a list, St. Catherine Laboure immediately comes to mind: She would spend hours every day ON FOOT to attend the Mass that did "not adequately express the nature of the Church."

How many saints have been formed by the Ordinary Form?

Marc said...

On the other (aka Catholic) end of the spectrum, from our parish bulletin this week:

The same [invalidity] can be the case with the New Mass, and this even if the priest still believes in the Real Presence. He could have a contrary intention to that of the Church. This would be the case if his intention explicitly refuses offering a true sacrifice, the unbloody renewal of Calvary, and explicitly considers that it is to be only a meal and a commemoration of the Last Supper. Such an intention would be directly contrary to the intention of doing what the Church does. We do not know how often this happens, but it is very reasonable to believe that it is a common occurrence. Consequently, there are probably many celebrations of the New Mass, by priests who are convinced of modernist theories, that are invalid.

This is one reason why we cannot have anything to do with the New Mass. However, the more universal reason is that it is insulting and injurious to Almighty God and to Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if it happens to be valid.

TJM said...

Ruff is a totalitarian like most modern liberals. They are narrow minded, selfish and vindictive and could care less about the faithful. If they did care they would be exploring why many young people and young clergy are attracted to the EF

Anonymous said...

"We do not know how often this happens, but it is very reasonable to believe that it is a common occurrence."

Why is it reasonable?

"Consequently, there are probably many celebrations of the New Mass, by priests who are convinced of modernist theories, that are invalid."

"Modernist" theories, such as....?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Starting to wonder about the validity of a Mass based upon a priest's attitude is a slippery slope. How about with the EF, if I think it is only a Sacrifice and not also a Sacrificial Banquet (meal) does that invalidate the whole thing?

I can't say I have ever run into any priest, traditional or otherwise who does not intend to celebrate the Mass according to the "mind" of the Church even if he has his own opinions about this, that or the other or is struggling with unblief in this, that or the other.

Victor said...

Modernist reformers such as Ruff are passionate about their liturgical ideas because they really believe that Sacrosanctum Consilium is a dogmatic document fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and, even though perhaps not binding for all time, is binding for the next many generations. That is to say, modernists believe that human beings change enough through time to warrant constant change of doctrine and dogma through time.
Nevertheless, as Cletus Ordo above pointed out, the document is pastoral, based on Josef Jungmann's Modernist theories of the "Pastoral," and of the Latin liturgy corrupted by the fight against Arianism. It is merely a disciplinary document composed mostly by Jungmann and finely edited down by Bugnini to be rammed through the Council at the first opportunity. Such a document can be revised, or even withdrawn without any Council approval and another substituted for it by a pope at any time. A Council is a convenient place to vote on such a document, absolving a pope from having to face the criticism. But what does an Ecumenical Council have to do with a document that applies only to the Latin rite? The Eastern rites continue their "unreformed" ways. Are the Easterns an irrelevant lost flock? Or, what active participation is there in the Eastern Rites for the people, even in singing, that should be a model for the Latin rite? Maybe the Latin Rite too should have an iconostasis.

Marc said...

I'm sure it's possible for a priest offering the traditional mass to do so without the proper intention; although, there is a particular prayer for the priest to say before offering the mass that includes a statement of the proper intention. I believe that prayer is lacking in the Novus Ordo service.

It would seem that there are few priests who lack the intention to celebrate even the Novus Ordo according to the mind of the Church. Of course, the mind of the Novus Ordo "Church" might then be the root of the problem as in, for example, a time when the general instruction itself contained an heretical statement of the nature of the mass. If a priest attempted to offer such a mass in accordance with that mind, it would be invalid.

The idea is that it is a slippery slope to be concerned with the priest's intention when saying mass, which is why we are told to avoid the Novus Ordo, as well as traditional masses said by diocesan and Ecclesia Dei priests. That is, at least, a consistent application of the principle, regardless whether you agree with it or not.

Richard M. Sawicki said...

Cletus Ordo:

Thanks for your excellent comment. As a devotee of "Zoe" (St. Catherine Laboure) I always enjoy references such as yours.

Yes, I hear you. One of the auxiliary bishops of my archdiocese, at a dinner last year, went on and on about attending Palm Sunday Mass in 1957, making numerous snide remarks about the vestments ("like something out of a bad Victoria's Secret catalog"), the rubrics, the Latin ("only the taking of the collection was in English..hah..hah..hah", etc) and concluded, "as I watched that Mass, something deep inside me said, 'there's something definitely wrong with this'".

In charity, I refrained from informing him that any number of my Polish, Quebecois, and Irish ancestors would have risked life and limb to have the opportunity to attend that Mass he felt had "something wrong" with it.

Keep the Faith! Better days ARE coming!

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

TJM said...

Richard M. Sawicki,

I think someone should have told this "bishop" that there was something definitely wrong with him. Loons like this bishop act out in this manner because it is so rare they are called out for their idiotic and outrageous statements.

Mark Thomas said...

Victor said..."Modernist reformers such as Ruff are passionate about their liturgical ideas because they really believe that Sacrosanctum Consilium is a dogmatic document fully inspired by the Holy Spirit..."

If Father Ruff believes that, then he is on firm ground as evidenced by the following:

"The reforms come from the Holy Spirit" — Pope Venerable Pius XII

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f101_Dialogue_22.htm

Pope Venerable Pius XII, at the 1956 A.D. International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy held in Assisi, declared that the Liturgical Movement, as well as radical liturgical reforms that had been approved by Rome, are linked to the Holy Ghost.

Pope Venerable Pius XII, September 22, 1956 A.D:

"Thus the liturgical movement has appeared as a sign of Godʼs providential dispositions
for the present day, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church, intended to bring
men closer to those mysteries of the faith and treasures of grace which derive from the
active participation of the faithful in liturgical life."

Radical reforms of the Roman Liturgy that range from the employment of the vernacular to the "active participation of the faithful" are the work of the Holy Ghost, according to Pope Venerable Pius XII.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Victor said..."Modernist reformers such as Ruff are passionate about their liturgical ideas because they really believe that Sacrosanctum Consilium is a dogmatic document fully inspired by the Holy Spirit..."

If Father Ruff believes that, then he is on firm ground as evidenced by the following:

"The reforms come from the Holy Spirit" — Pope Venerable Pius XII

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f101_Dialogue_22.htm

Pope Venerable Pius XII, at the 1956 A.D. International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy held in Assisi, declared that the Liturgical Movement, as well as radical liturgical reforms that had been approved by Rome, are linked to the Holy Ghost.

Pope Venerable Pius XII, September 22, 1956 A.D:

"Thus the liturgical movement has appeared as a sign of Godʼs providential dispositions
for the present day, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church, intended to bring
men closer to those mysteries of the faith and treasures of grace which derive from the
active participation of the faithful in liturgical life."

Radical reforms of the Roman Liturgy that range from the employment of the vernacular to the encouragement of the "active participation of the faithful" are the work of the Holy Ghost, according to Pope Venerable Pius XII.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

rcg said...

I know that the NO can be executed in a reverent and respectful way. Would Fr Ruff accept that? The hallmark of the NO despite the rare solemn version is that it allows for blatant disrespect for the Crucified Lord and the laity and denies that a reverent Mass is any different. My disillusion with the NO is that it was pushed on the laity through lies and ignorance. How can I respect the men who did that?

John Nolan said...

Mark Thomas

No pope, not even the autocratic Pius XII, is competent to declare that this or that movement or trend is inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Victor said...

Mr Thomas:
I think popes St Paul VI and, I think, Francis made similar statements. But are these ex cathedra? No way!

When you have a firm ideological agenda, like the Modernist liturgical movement did, then the first step is to convince the powers in charge, in this case the popes, that what you are doing is absolutely right. So enter the claim of "the work of the Holy Spirit." As Dr Byrne pointed out:

'Much of Pius XII’s Assisi speech echoed the desiderata which the reformers had been putting forward in their various congresses and publications. The fact that the forces of Progressivism should play a pivotal role in the Pope’s speech is highly significant. It shows that he was swayed by their rhetoric in making policy decisions for the rest of the Church.'

Perhaps the greatest manipulator of the popes was Bugnini, who, as Louis Bouyer pointed out, was able to get his way with St Paul VI through dishonesty and manipulation. And so too were he and his ilk able to manipulate Pius XII for the changes to the Paschal vigil, as Dr Byrne also relates:

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f095_Dialogue_17.htm

But the name of the name of the game on this planet has always been to get those with the real power on your side, like the anti-CO2 environmentalists with pope Francis. In the case of the liturgical reforms, the popes were not liturgists, and like everyone else could often be easily influenced in their opinions by the "experts".

By the way, all of Dr. Carol Byrne's writings at

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f000TradIssuesIndex.html#trad

are well researched and informative for anyone interested in how the liturgical reforms or, rather, "deforms", came about.

TJM said...

MT,

Still taking Pius XII out of context in your execrable cut and paste method. Please read Mediator Dei before pontificating here. Also please enumerate for us the "radical" I changes Pius XII imposed on the EF. Which rubrics changed, which text changed? Where was the vernacular allowed in the Mass in the US? I assume you will just continue your method of "dump and run" rather than respond.