Even Pope Francis realizes the disaster of how the Pauline Mass is celebrated and really since it was promulgated on the First Sunday of Advent, 1969.
1. Sloppiness reigned
2. Reverence was redefined which was irreverence
3. Disobedience to the rubrics was the norm
4. Ad libbing came quickly with made up prayers even made-up Eucharistic Prayers.
5. Sacred Scripture was substituted with other readings, mostly secular.
The disobedience led to approved reforms that Pope Paul VI never envisioned.
1. Eucharistic Ministers becoming the norm rather than the exception
2. Female altar servers, banned and forbidden, but through disobedience, finally was approved by the mid 1980’s
3. Communion in the hand, once forbidden, was approved because of widespread disobedience.
In no way, unless one lives in a fantasy land, can we say that the manner in which the Mass is celebrated today is what Pope Paul VI, let alone Vatican II, envisioned for the reform of the Mass.
And I haven’t even touched on the abysmal state of hymns sung at Mass, to include secular ditties or religious words set to secular tunes. I had a parishioner just yesterday, after Sunday Mass, say he was in Zurich, Switzerland for two Sundays and both Sundays, the Mass had music performed by a jazz band that was seated in the sanctuary and secular, popular music was sung. Can anyone say this is what Vatican II wanted? Evidently some to and some bishops don’t care what parishes do with the Mass—Vatican II wanted this?
How many parishes in the world chant the propers with Gregorian Chant which Vatican II said was to be maintained?
Howe many parishes celebrate the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientem since the General Instruction of the Modern Mass envisions it and allows both ad orientem and toward to the nave?
How many parishes allow the reception of Holy Communion, kneeling, on the tongue and at a restore altar railing?
All of these options are Vatican II and are allowed but if a bishop says no, then his disobedience must be followed. Is that Vatican II?
Pope Benedict XVI realized the abysmal failure the Vatican II Mass is because of its distorted celebrations and so does Pope Francis, but only recently acknowledging it. Pope Benedict nailed it when he said the New Mass was manufactured, not organically developed, respecting what was the previous ancient tradition.
He knew the way to true liturgical renewal. The current cabal of 1970’s liturgical ideologues in the Vatican are clueless and wish to cancel Pope Benedict’s vision of the much needed “reform of the reform.” They won’t win, because they are all aging people who are entering or have entered the final stages of their life.
There is hope, liturgical hope and hope for the heavenly liturgy properly celebrated on earth!
23 comments:
Father, your comments highlight that, despite all the caterwauling about how the new Mass is faithful to Vatican II, what is actually celebrated in most parishes is not the Mass of Pope Paul VI as contained in the liturgical books. Until such a Mass is widely available, complaints about the celebration of old Mass are hypocrisy.
What we get in most parishes is the way it is because that's--unfortunately--what most Catholics, at least the ones who go regularly, want.
Those geriatric relics who have been at St. Sloppy's ever since you can remember were teenagers and young adults when the Novus Ordo was imposed upon us. They could have rebelled. They could have made their voices known. Well, they DID make their voices known and what they got catered to their 60's aesthetic of rebellion. They got their little liturgical revolution and it's been about as successful and good for us as most of the other "revolutions" that came since the 60's, including the way we deal with sex and gender roles, race, politics and everything else in our culture: In short, it's gotten worse.
The Novus Ordo patrimony we've inherited is "is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
And it will continue to be embraced and praised and practiced until we get a pope who is part saint and part warrior.
Don't hold your breath.
Jerome, the maddening part of what you have expressed is that many young people today, at least among the ones who haven't abandoned the Faith, recognize that there is something to be treasured in the old ways, but are forbidden from doing much about it (yet) because the old folks (who, for some reason, must be appeased above all) would--quelle surprise--rebel. And the old folks won't even stop to consider why their offspring reject their upbringing of rebellion, '70s kitsch, etc. by (1) leaving the Church or (2) returning to tradition. We stand at a truly unique sociological time period.
Nick
"Pope Benedict nailed it when he said the New Mass was manufactured, not organically developed, respecting what was the previous ancient tradition."
If that is the proper context of then-Cardinal Ratzinger's comment in question, then his following declarations are contradictory:
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the Missal of Pope Saint Paul VI is "nothing other than a renewed form of that same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history."
===========
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger:
"Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular."
=========
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 Benedict XVI: "Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books."
"The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
======
Why did Pope Benedict XVI insist that TLM communities could not excluded the reformed Mass when he believed supposedly that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI is banal, manufactured, and disrespectful of the Roman liturgical tradition?
Why would he foist such a thing upon "traditionalists?"
For that matter, why did Pope Benedict XVI insist that the supposed banal, manufactured, reformed Mass, which is disrespectful of the Roman liturgical tradition supposedly, would remain as the Latin Church's primary Mass?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Nick: True.
The same groups who so passionately cry out for tolerance and understanding are the most rigid and intolerant among us. They have a pope who mirrors their mindset.
"For my friends, everything. For my enemies, not even justice."
Nick
Nick and Jerome Merwick,
Carry on!!
It’s amazing how cherry-picking the words of Pope Benedict XVI out of context can twist his true and clearly stated feelings about the necessary coexistence of the TLM and new Mass. I’ll bet that effort broke a big sweat.
David
David,
You are dealing with an evil man, likely a paid troll
During the early 1960s, Joseph Ratzinger insisted that from the days of Trent to his time — centuries — the state of Latin Church liturgy was dreadful.
From the late 1940s to 1958 A.D., Pope Venerable Pius XII had promoted the radical reform of the Roman Liturgy. He authorized Monsignor Bugnini to help achieve that goal. A vast amount of the Vatican II Fathers had arrived at the Council determined to move forward with Pope Venerable Pius XII's liturgical reform.
Even Eastern Catholic Conciliar Fathers had insisted that Latin Church liturgy had long been mired in sorry shape. In particular, they insisted that it was imperative to introduce vernaculars into the Mass.
Throughout Pope Saint John Paul II's near 27-year reign, then-Cardinal Ratzinger insisted repeatedly that Latin Church liturgy had remained mired in appalling condition.
Father McDonald today has painted a bleak portrait of the overall state of Latin Church liturgy — mired in ruins from, as he stated, the "First Sunday of Advent, 1969," to date.
I pray that the time has arrived for liturgy to blossom throughout the Latin Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Where is there even one sentence in this entire thread in which the words of Pope Benedict XVI have been twisted in regard to the necessary coexistence of the TLM and new Mass?
There is not one sentence in this thread that has broached that topic.
A certain person here is in dire need of a major league dose of reading comprehension.
Wow!
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
And were those you quoted denying Magisterial teachings in calling for a reform of liturgy as it had been celebrated for over a thousand years and as confirmed by the Council of Trent?
Funny, I don't get the idea that co-existence of the two missals is the idea of Traditionis Traditores.
Nick
The interpretation that Pope Benedict XVI's "manufactured, banal liturgy" comment pertained to the official liturgical reform/reformed Mass is untenable. I demonstrated that via several declarations from Joseph Ratzinger in which he had heaped praise upon the liturgical reform/reformed Mass.
With Father's permission, here is an important addition to that list:
Following his having fallen asleep in the Lord, the SSPX had published Reflections on the Life of Pope Benedict XVI. The Society noted that they had been presented with two unrelenting demands:
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/reflections-life-pope-benedict-xvi-79475
That they "accept Vatican II and acknowledge the liturgical reform as good."
Why was it demanded that the SSPX, to obtain regularization, declare as "good," the very liturgical reform that Pope Benedict XVI had viewed supposedly as horrific and destructive to the Church?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I had posted the following here:
"Following his having fallen asleep in the Lord, the SSPX had published Reflections on the Life of Pope Benedict XVI. The Society noted that they had been presented with two unrelenting demands:
That they "accept Vatican II and acknowledge the liturgical reform as good."
I do not believe that I had noted that Pope Benedict XVI had authorized discussions with the SSPX.
But said discussion collapsed eventually as it was demanded of the SSPX that to obtain regularization from Pope Benedict XVI, the Society had to "accept Vatican II and acknowledge the liturgical reform as good."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I don't know what the future of the Latin Rite is. I do hope the current Missal is revised to restore many traditional elements that were eliminated due to the Concilium. I will do my best to support young priests that are restoring the patrimony of the Latin Rite. That's the real future and not the older clergy that critique past practices.
For example,
https://catholickey.org/2023/12/04/house-of-god-st-ann-parish-plattsburg/
https://catholickey.org/2023/08/07/house-of-god-st-columban-chillicothe/
https://catholickey.org/2024/02/05/house-of-god-st-mary-parish-independence/
75-80% of Americans attended Sunday Mass in 1960 when we had the TLM? The Church does not sound like it was in “terrible” shape then, unless you are a braindead denier of reality type. About 13% of American Catholics attend Sunday Mass now with the “glorious and holy” Novus Ordo. But to the backwardists to the 1970s and our resident papalotor things are going swimmingly!
"Magisterial teaching" refers to faith and morals, not to the regulations that govern the celebration of the liturgy. Liturgical regulation is, and must be, subject to change.
The introduction of the Novus Ordo is not responsible for the decline in church attendance. This view looks at the Church in isolation from the larger society. The same decline has been seen, and is worse, in some mainline Protestant denominations. It has also been present in almost every social service organization across Western Societies.
Fr K,
You are always good for a laugh! Keep telling yourself that
The Church is just like every other human institution, eh? Surely God's grace could've done nothing to prevent the collapse... oh well, better just muddle on through managing the decline of our Mother into senescence, just as long as we face the people and keep cracking jokes and don't commit the ultimate sin of backwardness!
Nick
Nick - Just as you are like every other carbon-based organism, the Church is like every other human institution. There are liars, embezzlers, sexual deviants, cult leaders and would-be cult leaders, paranoiacs, on the one hand, in human institutions, and they are present in the Church.
On the other hand there are saintly individuals, strong servant-leaders, supremely honest, generous, compassionate, empathetic, hard-working folks in human society, and they are present in the Church.
Recall that Grace Builds On Nature. And as Thomas Aquinas reminds us, Grace Perfects Nature. He also reminds us, "Although man is inclined to an end by nature, yet he cannot attain that end by nature, but only by grace because of the exalted character of the end.” Grace does not eradicate or replace the "weak" elements of human nature.
Whatever good comes about is made possible by Grace.
Similarly, it is often said that God gives us what we pray for. I seem to remember a lot of prayers being discarded or rewritten, oh, in the neighborhood of 1965-70.
Nick
Nick - God MAY give us what we pray for. God most certainly gives us what we need.
Yes, many prayers were re-written in that time. Translation is an evolving art, so such changes can be needed and beneficial.
In the Douay-Rheims English translation of the Bible we find: "And John was clothed with camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and he ate locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying: There cometh after me one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and loose."
In the New Internation Bible, we read, "John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie."
Now, I don't know about you, but the NIV text seems a better translation for our times.
The Revised NAB insists on using the word "thong" instead of strap. Well, in most American English-speaking places I know, "thong" means a flip-flop (beach shoe) or really, really skimpy underwear. Not a good choice if you ask me.
Post a Comment