Translate

Wednesday, September 2, 2020

WE MUST FOLLOW WHAT VATICAN II'S DOCUMENT ON THE LITURGY WROTE ABOUT THE REVISION OF THE MASS--DOING SO, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE OFFICIAL REVISION ISN'T FAITHFUL TO THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT OF THE REVISION, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Yes, Virginia, this is the revised Vatican II Mass:



I have said, countless, and let me repeat that, countless, times that we must be faithful to what Sacrosanctum actually said about the revision of the liturgy of the Mass. It is the founding document to which we must, let me repeat that, we must return.

So, of course, I have written often on this topic. What say you. Keep in mind, there is no option. The Mass must be revised according to the founding document of Vatican II. How would you do it according to these most important criteria set forth in the founding document:

1. Noble Simplicity
2. Maintain Latin but allow for some Verncular
3. ridding the Mass of useless repetition
4. More lavish use of Scripture
5. Active/actual participation

I hope I am not leaving anything out. Of course the normative Mass we have today includes things that were not in the founding document of Vatican II. What are these accretions and how would you recommend we proceed to eliminate them?

Fortunately, in the great wisdom of the Emeritus Pope, we have the Traditional Latin Mass of the ages to use as to how it should be revised according to the founding document of revision of Vatican II. This should help you in your faithful revision of the EF Mass.

14 comments:

Pierre said...

Father McDonald,

Your devotion to the Liturgy is commendable. Have you been able to introduce some of these points you made at your main parish church? The reason I ask, is that my 32 year old pastor has done many of these things over time, after proper catechesis, and no one has stormed out. As a matter of fact, attendance has grown, particularly among young families with children.

Anonymous said...

Yes, follow Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Keep in mind these essential passages of SC:

"2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established."

"3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See."

"39. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution."

"1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship."



John Nolan said...

Nonsense. Sacrosanctum Concilium is an ambiguous and thoroughly dishonest document which was a blueprint for what came after. Those who wrote it knew exactly what they wanted, and thanks to Paul VI they got it.

For historical reasons Americans are obsessed with 'founding documents'. An Enlightenment conceit. The Roman Rite grew organically over two millennia without a 'founding document', let alone one which dates only from 1963.

Anonymous said...

Competent ecclesiastical authority blew it - epic fail

ByzRus said...

After 50+ years of beating this horse to death then, resurrecting it only to beat it to death again, I wonder if it is even salvageable. Perhaps it might be better to drop back the proverbial 5 yards and punt by rewriting the horribly flawed Sacrosanctum Concilium or, performing some other strategic act of repair. In principal, it would seem that another council is not necessary but, this has gone nowhere and will likely continue to go nowhere until the current generation(s) of bishops and the pontiff himself go off to their heavenly reward.

JACOB said...

noble simplicity is the novus ordo equivalent of "peaceful protect"

John said...

The music should go as prescribed in the various rip-off "hymnals." These song books are a disgrace of the NO rite. But do not hold your breaths. They area money making machine and the copyright owners have a death grip over our bishops regarding their use. Honestly, I am not convinced the NO can be reformed. There are no credible liturgists left, the wannabe crowed are more interested inpolitics and other heretical issues such as women priests and same sex marriages since bigamous ones have been normalized already.

We are left with the TLM. The young like it. They come and fill the pews with their 3-5 or more actually very well behaved children. It is amazing and gratifying to see them. Some of the oder ones also come. They are the future of the Catholic Church. The smaller but stronger ecclesia Pope Benedict talked about.

The V-2 documents need to be forgotten. They gave official permission liberals politicians and similarly inclined clerics, up and down the the Catholic hierarchy, to peddle their toxic, heretical beliefs long enough. Woke or worse self-hating Marxist Catholicism is poison. It underpins Liberation ideology/theology. Sunday after Sunday in the pews there are fewer and fewer occupants. I guess the last person leaving will let the candles just burn down. Some one should tell the comfortably fixed clerics in the chanceries and the Vatican the party is just about over.The new Spring time has not come for over 50 years now. It will never come. Not the Springtime our elites have wished for anyway.

Anonymous said...

"Those who wrote it knew exactly what they wanted, and thanks to Paul VI they got it."

My, my, my. There you go again, John, doing what you so often rail against others doing.

You weren't there, you can't know "exactly what they wanted," unless you now have the capacity to read minds, and of the dead.

Oh you'll tell us now that you're read books written by people who ALSO claimed to know "exactly what they wanted," and that will be your perennial defense.

Don't complain when we say we know your motivations...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

The corrupt losers who fashioned SS have outed themselves many times, so John Nolan, as usual, is right , and as usual, you are wrong

Paul McCarthy said...

John Nolan spot on again. Modernist are masters of Ambiguity’s. They were then and still are here in 2020 when they try to convince us to reform the reform. In the words of BLM and Antifa burn it all down.

V for Vigano

John Nolan said...

Anonymous-the-pillock,

Historical judgements don't depend on our 'being there'. In fact the passage of time makes a balanced appraisal easier to arrive at. I don't 'rail against' the historical judgements of others even when I happen to disagree with them. If you disagree with my historical analysis by all means do so, but provide an alternative analysis which is based on evidence.

Otherwise you merely show yourself up as an ignoramus as well as a small-minded argumentative little sod.

Anonymous said...

"Historical judgements don't depend on our 'being there'. In fact the passage of time makes a balanced appraisal easier to arrive at."

But you haven't arrived at some appraisal - you have presumed to know their intentions. You can't. You can make assumptions, you may presume to know, but when you claim to know "exactly what they wanted" you are being entirely disingenuous.

"I don't 'rail against' the historical judgements of others even when I happen to disagree with them."

You frequently rail aginst those who DARE to suggest they have made a balanced appraisal of your motivations. Why you deny it now it beyond me. I could guess, and I might even presume to know with certainlty, but you'd only get on tyour high horse again.

"If you disagree with my historical analysis by all means do so, but provide an alternative analysis which is based on evidence."

Your "historical analysis" cannot determine "exactly what they wanted." It simply can't.

Your cute little adminitions always make me smile.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous, my 'motivations' (motives?) are immaterial. Do some research, come up with your own ideas, or shut up. There's plenty of evidence out there. I could give you a reading list, but your education (or lack of it) is not my concern, and in any case I charge for tuition.

Anonymous said...

Kavanaugh,

Give it a rest - you lost and you are boring