I think overall the video above is a nice presentation and tries to be somewhat pastoral and not shrill. I think he is unrealistic about the exclusive return of the TLM to the Universal Church, even if the Universal Church's MVD continues to bleed members and only a half percent of Catholics actually attend it on any given Sunday. As Walter Conkrite would say, "That's the way it is!"
I agree that the TLM is stable and needs no correction concerning liturgical abuses in how it is being celebrated in the 21st Century. I don't believe there are any liturgical abuses with it that so many "know nothings" about this Mass think there are and the only back-up for assertions is what might have happened in the 1950's or at the time of Trent.
The MVM is a disaster in many locations, but not in all and I hope in the the many, this is a small percentage of the overall picture of the MVM throughout the world.
The MVM is what it is and the multitude of options, often made in the most clericalist way, are here to stay. With an MVM built upon options, I hope one day, the traditional elements of the TLM return to the MVM as an option as is the case with the Missal Pope Francis promulgated in 2013, the Ordinariate's Missal, Divine Worship.
The 21st Century's New Liturgical Movement must be a grassroots movement to work toward an exclusively new Roman Missal at a future date. There is no doubt that the MVM is in crisis and is so poorly celebrated with true liturgical abuses, and that it needs to be reformed.
The reformed MVM must be a reform in continuity with the TLM. The 1965 transitional Roman Missal could well be a template for that, albeit the reform in continuity must take on some of the novelties that traditionalists whine about, such as new collects, feasts, prefaces and noble simplicity.
As it concerns the lectionary, I think having three readings (not counting the Psalm) is too much to digest and is devised simply for the sake of having more Scriptures hurled at us during Mass, although most of us can't digest that much at one time.
The TLM lectionary as well as the daily Mass lectionary of the MVM is the template for the future. In this regard, we could keep the TLM's lectionary as Year A (obviously some modifications might be needed) and then have a Year B and C modeled after Year A but using Old Testament, Epistles and Gospels not used in the TLM one year cycle.
Thus ends my brilliant take on this!
7 comments:
Well if the Bishops had the brains of the Ford executives they would have retired this "Edsel" model long ago. But they obviously don't. They will go on with their Soviet-style defense of this flop.
The video's narrator is all over the board.
He claimed that Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, had provided tremendous support to the reform-of-the-reform movement. The narrator insisted that said Popes had the backs of those who supported the reform-of-the-reform movement.
However, the narrator insisted as well that Popes Saint John Paul II, as well as Benedict XVI, were useless Pontiffs who had paid mere "lip-service" to the reform-of-the-reform movement.
The narrator insisted that with the rare exception, Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, had refused to initiate concrete actions that would have advanced the reform-of-the-reform movement.
Even more troubling, if we believe the narrator, is that Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, contributed to the liturgical chaos.
The narrator insisted that Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI: "Did little to curb actual liturgical abuse, and in many cases even contributed to it."
At the end of the video, the narrator echoed the pipe dream that would have the Western Church return in whole to the TLM. As Father McDonald noted, the narrator "is unrealistic about the exclusive return of the TLM to the Universal Church."
I agree with Father McDonald in that the narrator was not shrill. However, the narrator espoused the standard radtrad nonsense.
He trashed the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI...trashed holy Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI...promoted the radtrad pipe dream that we must return to the TLM exclusively.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The video's narrator is all over the board.
He claimed that Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, had provided tremendous support to the reform-of-the-reform movement. The narrator insisted that said Popes had the backs of those who supported the reform-of-the-reform movement.
However, the narrator insisted as well that Popes Saint John Paul II, as well as Benedict XVI, were useless Pontiffs who had paid mere "lip-service" to the reform-of-the-reform movement.
The narrator insisted that with the rare exception, Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, had refused to initiate concrete actions that would have advanced the reform-of-the-reform movement.
Even more troubling, if we believe the narrator, is that Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, contributed to the liturgical chaos.
The narrator insisted that Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI: "Did little to curb actual liturgical abuse, and in many cases even contributed to it."
At the end of the video, the narrator echoed the pipe dream that would have the Western Church return in whole to the TLM. As Father McDonald noted, the narrator "is unrealistic about the exclusive return of the TLM to the Universal Church."
I agree with Father McDonald in that the narrator was not shrill. However, the narrator espoused the standard radtrad nonsense.
He trashed the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI...trashed holy Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI...promoted the radtrad pipe dream that we must return to the TLM exclusively.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
LOL! You can’t deal with reality. The Novus Ordo is a flop whereas the TLM was wildly successful. You may now return to Alice in Wonderland!
I wish to concede the following to the narrator:
The narrator, although not shrill, as Father McDonald noted, is nevertheless a radtrad who, in radtrad fashion, characterized holy Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, as do-nothings in regard to their lack of serious, concrete actions designed to have curbed liturgical abuses, as well as to have advanced the reform-of-the-reform.
The above criticisms in regard to holy Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, are standard within the Traditional Catholic Movement.
However, in fairness to trads, even non-trads who otherwise have held said Popes in high regard, have insisted that Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, refused to have mandated concrete actions that would have brought about the reform-of-the-reform.
In particular, that criticism has been applied repeatedly, even by his strongest supporters, to Pope Benedict XVI.
Pope Emeritus had written, as well as spoken, extensively about the need to reform the, in his opinion (shared by many folks), overall dreadful state of Ordinary Form Latin Church liturgy.
But as Pope, when he had the awesome authority to have mandated in concrete fashion the reform-of-the-reform, Pope Benedict XVI refused to have performed that task.
I will not second-guess Pope Emeritus. He governed the Church as he had deemed proper.
But again, in fairness to the radtrad narrator, many among those who have supported in strong fashion Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, have insisted that said Popes had squandered their opportunities to have enacted in concrete fashion the reform-of-the-reform.
Oh, well. One thing is certain: It is easy to second-guess our above-mentioned holy Popes.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I think the TLM has a very important job to do when leveler heads prevail at some point in the future long after all here have become part of the ages. It will springboard, as Fr. AJM suggests, a revised MVM. At some point, the amoeba that is the NO will become too far gone to be saved. The Reform of the Reform Movement, as we knew it 15 years ago, is just over.
I also think TJM is correct and, correct for the reasons presented. While the TLM is timeless and it evolved organically, the NO was created, choreographed, forced on the Church and then perverted in a manner akin to the most destructive of seismic events in an extraordinarily short amount of time. Since its introduction, the NO and all that pours forth from it has been shrinking.
Last, I think it's important to note that the Divine Liturgy was wildly successful way back when as well. But like the Roman Church, it hasn't been immune from social upheaval, changing norms, moral decay as we, the churched, define it, blended families, intermarriage, the explosion of the "nones" and the Government replacing the Church as a moral authority. Though both our liturgies and membership are in some ways more orthodox than many of our Western counterparts, it's happening on a much smaller scale relative to 50 years ago, particularly in the United States. Perhaps I could suggest that the Eastern Churches in the United States have already reach the point predicted by the Emeritus Pope for the West - a smaller yet more faithful episcopacy, presbyterate and laity.
ByzRus,
Well said!
Post a Comment