This is a must read and the most thorough, brief history of the liturgical reform and how, during the papacy of Paul VI, Sacrosanctum Concilium was sidelined for a liturgical ideology and reform not envisioned by Vatican II.
The author gives a precise history of the liturgical development that occurred under all the popes beginning with Paul VI. Today, we have gone backwards to the more authoritarian dictates of Paul the VI, which based on accepting papal authority, rather than what Sacrosanctum Concilium desired, is a part of rigid authoritarianism that reigns again under Cardinal Roche.
IT’S LONG BUT WELL WORTH THE READ, IN FACT, A MUST READ AND VERY INFROMATIVE!
34 comments:
Dom Alcuin Reid has presented Sacrosanctum Concilium favorably.
However, Sacrosanctum Concilium, for decades, has been trashed by one "traditionalist" after another. Example: Peter Kwasniewski.
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/sacrosanctum-concilium-the-ultimate-trojan-horse
-- Sacrosanctum Concilium: The Ultimate Trojan Horse
"The conclusion: Sacrosanctum Concilium is not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church."
"I know that it’s painful for many good Catholics to admit that it is a corrupt and corrosive document, but we must judge the tree by its fruits."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Via the following, Dom Alcuin Reid has "cancelled" teachings issued by Popes Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, as well as Francis.
Dom Alcuin Reid: "The liturgical acts of Benedict XVI’s pontificate flowed from his desire to be true to the Council and to ensure that continuity which he knew had been so grievously ruptured by the liturgical books of Paul VI."
-- Pope Saint Paul VI rejected the above. He declared that the liturgical books that he had promulgated with in line with the Council/Holy Tradition.
-- Pope Saint John Paul II rejected Dom Alcuin Reid's claim in question. Pope Saint John Paul II declared:
"The Council's renewal of the Liturgy is expressed most clearly in the publication of liturgical books. The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium" and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and self less work of a large number of experts and bishops from all parts of the world."
"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers".
=======================
Pope Benedict XVI declared: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LOL - MT has not a clue if he actually read the piece. Keep stinking up the place with your drivel
Don Alcuin Reid noted:
"The most radical change in the Mass envisaged at the Council was the widespread use of the vernacular languages in the first part of the Mass, then known as the “Mass of the Catechumens” and now as the “Liturgy of the Word,” celebrated with the direct involvement of the people from the sedilia."
"Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre thought this appropriate."
=================
I am thankful that Mister Reid acknowledged that Archbishop Lefebvre favored the "radical change in the Mass" — that is, the vernacularization of the Mass.
Certain trads have promoted the false narrative that "the people" had insisted upon Latin in the Mass. Said folks have pretended that big, bad, modernists had imposed vernaculars upon "the people."
The reality is that during Pope Venerable Pius XII's reign, there was an unstoppable desire throughout the Church to vernacularize the Mass. Even Archbishop Lefebvre had recognized that reality.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Read Mediator Dei, and you will know you are DEAD wrong
I am surprised that 1Peter5 carried the article in question. The reason is that Dom Alcuin Reid presented Vatican II/Sacrosanctum Concilium in favorable light.
He referenced/reiterated Pope Benedict XVI's 2013 A.D. address that praised Vatican II, while having condemned the false "Council of the media" that has harmed Holy Mother Church.
Mister Reid presented Vatican II as an orthodox Council, in line with Holy Tradition. In regard to those who claim otherwise: Mister Reid portrayed said folks as uninformed in regard to the Conciliar documents.
Mister Reid declared:
"If you disagree or have been told otherwise, study the documents themselves, carefully (and beware the spin that abounds in later commentaries on them)." Then go to the discussions held on the Council floor when they were being redacted."
"It is there that we will find the Second Vatican Council, rather than the Council desired and promoted by agenda-driven opportunists in its aftermath, or what Pope Benedict XVI famously called the “virtual Council” and “the Council of the media.” (Address, 14 February 2013)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
This is for all of the idiot bishops and priests who vote Dems:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fbis-attack-pro-life-catholics-bidens-america-jim-jordan-warns
The person doing the "trashing" here is Mr. Mark Thomas.
His repeated attacks on people, by name, using terms like "trashing," "false," "trads," and so forth, is both tiresome and serves more to aggravate than enlighten.
Embracing Vatican II as a valid exercise of the Church's teaching office, as I believe every Catholic ought to do, does not mean one cannot interrogate the texts or wonder if they were as well crafted as they might. None of the acts of Vatican II defined any new doctrine; so the documents aim to re-state perennial doctrine; and to propose changes in the presentation, or celebration, of the Deposit of Faith. There is nothing wrong with stating publicly that the texts might have been better written; or that the Council might have taken a somewhat different course, say, with reforming the liturgy or reforming the religious life. After all, does anyone deny that a subsequent ecumenical council might legitimately change course on these very points?
So I would argue that it is wrong for anyone to suggest or imply that anyone is a bad Catholic for wishing to "improve" the work of Vatican II -- provided, again, that one is not disputing the Council itself was legitimate, which it was: the pope summoned it, supervised its organization and operation, he presided over it and accepted its acts.
The people who Mr. Thomas attacks by name in this thread (and has done previously) are, as far as I know, simply wishing that Vatican II had done some things differently, and that perhaps a future pope or council will see that and act on that insight. There is no basis for Mr. Thomas's attacks, other than simply that he, Mr. Thomas, reaches different conclusions about Vatican II, which both he -- and the people he faults -- are free to do.
Fr. MARTIN Fox. One wonder why you call out Mark Thomas for, "His repeated attacks on people, by name,..." but do not do so when other exhibit the same behavior
Dom Alcuin Reid said:
"Regrettably, in the eight years of his pontificate Benedict XVI did not enact any concrete measures in respect of the reform of the liturgical reform of which he had spoken as a Cardinal."
"Sacrosanctum Concilium may have rejoiced at the principles outlined in December 2005, but the door of the Congregation for Divine Worship remained closed."
"That the Pope himself did not kick it open remains one of the enigmas of his pontificate."
=======================
In regard to the above: Alcuin Reid's article in question made clear that, when Pope Benedict XVI desired, he (Pope Benedict XVI) did not hesitate to assert himself.
Example: Dom Alcuin Reid noted that the issuance of Summorum Pontificum had "provoked much indignation on the part of the bishops..."
However, Mister Reid continued that Pope Benedict XVI, "personally faced down" the "indignation on the part of the bishops" that had accompanied Summorum Pontificum's issuance.
Though not noted by Mr. Reid, Pope Benedict XVI, for example, also exercised his awesome authority in regard to liturgy via his overthrow of the ancient Good Friday prayer for Jews.
Pope Benedict XVI did not care for said prayer. Nobody on earth could prevent his having overthrown the Traditional Roman Good Friday prayer for Jews.
Therefore, it is difficult to dispute Mister Reid's point when he labeled as an "enigma" Pope Benedict XVI's refusal to have enacted "concrete measures in respect of the reform of the liturgical reform..."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father Kavanaugh said..."Fr. MARTIN Fox. One wonder why you call out Mark Thomas for, "His repeated attacks on people, by name,..." but do not do so when other exhibit the same behavior"
Father Kavanaugh, thank you for your point.
In addition, Father Fox has misrepresented my comments in this thread. He claimed that I have attacked and trashed people "by name" in this thread.
My first sentence from my first post here: "Dom Alcuin Reid has presented Sacrosanctum Concilium favorably."
I then noted accurately that "Sacrosanctum Concilium, for decades, has been trashed by one "traditionalist" after another. Example: Peter Kwasniewski:
"The conclusion: Sacrosanctum Concilium is not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church. I know that it’s painful for many good Catholics to admit that it is a corrupt and corrosive document, but we must judge the tree by its fruits."
Does the above accurate quote constitute an horrific "attack" against Peter Kwasniewski?
My next post noted accurately that the following claim from Mister Reid contradicted teachings issued by Popes Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, as well as Francis:
"The liturgical acts of Benedict XVI’s pontificate flowed from his desire to be true to the Council and to ensure that continuity which he knew had been so grievously ruptured by the liturgical books of Paul VI."
Pope Benedict XVI, for example, declared in opposition to Dom Alcuin Reid's claim in question: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
Other than my having noted his inaccurate claim in question, I have, via this thread, thanked and praised Mr. Reid for having presented Vatican II/Sacrosanctum Concilium favorably.
I quoted Peter Kwasniewski's very words as he had denounced Sacrosanctum Concilium as "not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church...it is a corrupt and corrosive document..."
Father Fox has mispresented my comments posted to this thread. His comments in question are bizarre.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...
Fr. MARTIN Fox. One wonder why you call out Mark Thomas for, "His repeated attacks on people, by name,..." but do not do so when other exhibit the same behavior.
I dispute the premise; as it is your assertion, then the burden of proof belongs to you.
You will, of course, protest that it is essentially impossible to prove a negative. Well, you made the assertion, so you must live with it.
And in any case, this whole line of argument is manifestly bogus. It's what speeders say to cops when pulled over: "why don't you pull over those other people, huh?" It's also what we all said to our parents when we got busted -- "but what about what (insert big brother's name) did?"
It's irrelevant misdirection. It's not my job to police all the uncharitable comments in this or any thread on this, or any blog, (save perhaps my own).
Mr. Thomas:
You described Mr. Kwasniewski as "trashing" the Council's work. The word, "trashing," was YOUR WORD. That choice of words is you trashing him. Get it?
You said: "Dom Alcuin Reid has "cancelled" teachings..."
False, and calumnious. Dom Reid is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, namely that his statement can reasonably be understood in a more favorable way than your construction, then that is what you owe him. As John Lennon famously said, "It's easy if you try." (If you want a further explanation of that, ask.) But the responsibility for finding that more generous interpretation is on you -- the person who characterized Dom Reid's words, not me.
As it is, you opted for an intepretation of his remarks that paints him as "cancel[ling] papal teachings. That's you, trashing him.
And that's just two in this thread.
I'm sad that you have decided that, in order to manifest fidelity to Pope Francis (a commendable goal), you attack others who see things differently from you, and indeed, perhaps even differently from the Holy Father. You seem not to be aware that one can be faithful to the pope, and the Tradition, and yet hold differing views from the Pope on certain matters, even on certain decisions imbedded in the documents of Vatican II.
Fr. MARTIN Fox - I dispute your disputation.
And sorry, I bear no burden. Time and time and time again you have read nasty attacks by various posters here against me and others. If you have ever come out as strongly against those commenters as you have toward Mark Thomas, I certainly can't recall it.
I never suggested that it was your job, "... to police all the uncharitable comments in this or any thread on this, or any blog,..."
I pointed out that your policing is highly and suspiciously, to me at least, suspect.
Father Fox, I had noted in my earlier reply to you that "Sacrosanctum Concilium, for decades, has been trashed by one "traditionalist" after another. Example: Peter Kwasniewski:"
That is an accurate description as Peter Kwasniewski, in defiance of Church teaching, declared:
"The conclusion: Sacrosanctum Concilium is not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church...it is a corrupt and corrosive document..."
==========================
I said that Dom Alcuin Reid has "cancelled" teachings..." (I should have stated that Mr. Reid had ******* attempted ****** to cancel the teachings in question. Mister Reid is unable to cancel Papal teachings.)
Anyway, Father Fox replied: "False, and calumnious. Dom Reid is entitled to the benefit of the doubt..."
Dom Alcuin Reid is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt in regard to his false claim that the Church's holy liturgical books constitute a "rupture" as related to Conciliar teachings/the continuity of the Roman Liturgy.
Dom Alcuin Reid's claim in question is contrary to the teachings of Popes Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, as well as Francis.
-- Pope Francis, for example, has taught that within "the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II," we find "the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II."
-- Pope Benedict XVI: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
-- Pope Saint John Paul II: "The Council's renewal of the Liturgy is expressed most clearly in the publication of liturgical books. The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium" and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and self less work of a large number of experts and bishops from all parts of the world."
"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers".
Pax.
Mark Thomas
As I recall, Father Fox declared months ago that moving forward, he would ignore me. Father Fox has not done so. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of ignoring me.
During the past couple of weeks (or so), Father Fox has taken digs at me..mocked my (poor) writing style. But I ignored his nonsense in question. He does not bother me in that regard.
I am surprised, however, that Father Fox, as God's holy priest, has behaved that way.
I try not to waste my time and energy here in response to negativity aimed at me. Today, I responded to the false claims that earlier today, Father Fox had lodged against me.
I thank Father McDonald for having permitted me to post my comments to his blog. I have said my piece. Father Fox, as far as I am concerned, feel free to have the last word here.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mr. Thomas, your recollection is exactly opposite. It was you who told me you would ignore me.
And if your feelings were hurt because I lampooned your comments, then perhaps you will cease attacking others so freely. The holiness you rightly expect of me, is equally expected of you. Try to be more charitable. It strikes me as curious that you sign off with "pax" but you don't sow peace, you are insistent on attacking those you refer to as "so called traditionalists." It's both unfair and tiresome. Again, your loyalty to Pope Francis is laudable, if perhaps over the top, and that's what I was kidding you about.
Father Kavanaugh:
When *you* make an assertion, the burden of proof falls on you. That is so basic, I don't know how you missed it?
Fr Fox,
You're wasting your time on these two leftists, one who proudly votes for the Party of Moloch. I still believe they are the same person, even though someone got a person in Texas to "call" Father McDonald, saying it was MT. Their modus operandi is basically the same.
TJM, I can certify they are two different people!
Fr. MARTIN Fox - Again, I bear no burden. That you have not, "...come out as strongly against those commenters as you have toward Mark Thomas.." is plain to anyone who reads this blog.
It is something that is called "self-evident."
Father McDonald said,,,"TJM, I can certify they are two different people!"
Correction: For now, three different people. I will get it down to two different people when I lose weight.
:-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said,,,"TJM, I can certify they are two different people!"
Father, I believe that I had called you twice. Despite some of our disagreements on your blog, you were very kind to me.
I recall also that I had requested your prayers for some family members who were ill. I am certain that your prayers had contributed greatly to the rapid healing that they experienced.
Father McDonald, I was honored and blessed to have spoken with you.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Same mindset
There are a couple of really good points to be found in this thread. One point is that someone can be critical of an idea, or even the person holding it, but should use some form of decorum. It is normal for a person to have a personal and emotional attachment to an idea they have birthed, or at least adopted, so even criticisms of ideas should be somewhat civil even if the idea is tiresome and offensive.
I said..."As I recall, Father Fox declared months ago that moving forward, he would ignore me. Father Fox has not done so. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of ignoring me."
=======================
Father Fox said..."Mr. Thomas, your recollection is exactly opposite. It was you who told me you would ignore me."
========================
Fr Martin Fox, June 13, 2023 at 5:00 PM said...
"Mark: Your approach strikes me as passive-aggressive. I tried to enter into a conversation with you, but as you say, you are not interested. You make your points but ignore refutations and anything that holds you accountable.
"OK, best wishes, and I don't mean this to sound nasty, but I'm putting you on "ignore."
===================
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mr. Thomas:
Yes, and thanks for quoting this part:
"I tried to enter into a conversation with you, but as you say, you are not interested."
That was my statement: I tried to enter into dialogue with you. The very thing Pope Francis encourages. The sort of thing that we should all favor.
You rejected that.
So yes, I told you I would put you on, as it were, "ignore."
So what's your complaint? Do you think I owe you something? Did we enter into a contract?
I repeat again: don't be (what seems to me) so passive-aggressive.
I'm always open to talking to people, as I was with you. It wasn't I who refused. You did.
Father Fox, I stated accurately that you said that you planned to ignore me. You questioned my recollection in question.
But my recollection proved accurate. I proved that you said that you would ignore me.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father Fox, back in June, you had challenged me to "produce actual examples of so-called traditionalists that are dissenters et alia, as you indict them; and I will pay a bounty of $100 for each submission..."
===================
Father Fox, you then accused me of having said that you should keep your "mouth sealed shut."
I replied: "Father Fox, please show me where I said that you should keep your "mouth sealed shut." Thank you."
==============
Father Fox, you replied: "Since you so rarely respond to anything I ask you, I inferred you meant this for me. No? I am gratified."
===============
Father Fox, I then replied: "Father Fox, thank you for your reply. As is clear, I did not state, as you had said, that you should keep your "mouth sealed shut." If anything, I would not direct that comment at a holy priest of God...and I believe that you are God's holy priest.
"Father Fox, I hope to move on with you in far more positive fashion. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Father Fox, not that anybody needs my prayers — prayers from a sinful nobody (that's who I am) — but each day, I pray for you, as well as Father McDonald, and Father Kavanaugh. Father Fox, I hope that you will pray for me. I need your prayers.
Thank you."
=============
Father Fox, you then replied: "Thank you for your kind words and even more, your prayers. I resign myself to you choosing not to respond to my other questions, I do not know why.
"That means, Mark, that I am not going to be paying much attention to your comments..."
================
I replied: "I will engage those who desire respectful dialogue. I am 100 percent open to that. That said, not every comment directed at me captures my interest. I do not see the need to respond to those comments.
"Father Fox, I do not mean the following in nasty fashion: I did not respond initially to your proposal about your sending me $100 per dissenting traditionalist Catholic...I send you $1 per non-dissenting traditionalist Catholic...as I was not interested in that. Father Fox, thank you."
=============================
Father Fox, I attempted to engage you in charitable dialogue. You preferred to move on by having claimed that you would ignore me. That was/is fine with me.
But that has not been the case.
Anyway, I have said enough about this.
Father Fox, I wish you peace and good health.
Thank you
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark:
Yes, I challenged you to provide actual examples, because you were then -- as you are now -- attacking people. "Pax," eh? "Charity," eh?
Try more charity.
Father Fox,
MT is a leftist and a very confused person. Most of us have chosen to ignore him. I believe he is here to ruin this blog. He has chased away many of our best and thoughtful commenters who could no longer take his brainless bilge.
To return to this thread's topic:
"Traditionalist" Louie Verrecchio has denounced "traditionalist" Dom Alcuin Reid's favorable treatment of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Dom Alcuin Reid insisted, contrary to Church teaching, "that the reformed rites were not entirely in accordance with the Council’s demands." However, the following points from Louie Verrecchio have exposed the weakness associated with Mister Reid's claim in question.
Louie Verrecchio noted that "despite Reid’s suggestion to the contrary, the Council – in the text of the Constitution – did not make any demands. What was offered therein were “principles and norms that should be called to mind concerning the promotion and reform of the liturgy.” (cf SC 3)
"The Council was very clear: "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See” (SC 22. 1)."
"In other words, the bishops at Vatican II plainly understood that the pope would decide how the process of liturgical reform would unfold moving forward."
===================
Louie Verrecchio despises the Council/Sacrosanctum Concilium. However, Mister Verrecchio has employed Sacrosanctum Concilium's declarations to demonstrate that it is the Pope who interprets Sacrosanctum Concilium.
It is the Pope who determines as to whether the reformed rites are in line with the Council.
In that regard, contrary to Mr. Reid's declaration in question, our Vatican II Era Popes have taught that the reformed rites are in line with Holy Tradition/Vatican II.
For example: Pope Francis has taught that within "the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II," we find "the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
— Pope Venerable Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei:
"It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."
Exactly MT and Reid thesis might help the next pope to reform the Mass according to the principles of SC!
Father McDonald, I appreciate your reply.
==========
Louie Verrecchio made the following point in regard to his denunciation of Dom Alcuin Reid's article in question:
"In attempting to make his case, Reid proudly wears his undying devotion to Josef Ratzinger and the Second Vatican Council on his sleeve."
"He’s one of the few self-described “traditional” clerics still publicly calling for the “hermeneutic of continuity” and a “reform of the reform” carried out in fidelity to Sacrosanctum Concilium..."
=========
Interest in the “hermeneutic of continuity” and a “reform of the reform” is on life-support within the TLM Movement.
Such leading "traditionalists" as Rorate Caeli long ago rejected, for example, the ROTR.
From 2014 A.D: -- The End of the “Reform of the Reform”:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-end-of-reform-of-reform-kociks.html
====================
Peter Kwasniewski declared earlier this year that the ROTF is a dead-end. He also rejected the idea to "Tridentinize" the reformed Mass.
-- Can a Case Still Be Made for Reforming the Reform?
https://onepeterfive.com/reform-reform-case/
"...attempts should not be made to Tridentinize the new rite and put old things back into it
"What is clear, in any case, is that both the reform and the reform of the reform have led to the same place, namely, a dead end."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
In regard to Louie Verrecchio's comments:
"In attempting to make his case, Reid proudly wears his undying devotion to Josef Ratzinger and the Second Vatican Council on his sleeve."
"He’s one of the few self-described “traditional” clerics still publicly calling for the “hermeneutic of continuity” and a “reform of the reform” carried out in fidelity to Sacrosanctum Concilium..."
========================
Dom Alcuin Reid's "undying devotion" to holy Josef Ratzinger is fine with me. Josef Ratzinger is more than worthy of that. I applaud Dom Alcuin Reid's favorable view of the Second Vatican Council.
It is a shame that there are "traditionalists" who are not on board with Pope Benedict XVI, as well as the Council.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment