Don’t get me wrong, I love Pope Leo and I thank God that He has removed a heavy burden of becoming less of a traditional ultramontanist has weighed heavily upon me in the last 12 years.
But recently, there were a lot of posts on various medias reporting that Pope Leo XIV was holding back tears at the consecration and elevation of the Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
I looked at those and I am not sure if the pope was holding back tears or a burp. It’s hard to tell and grimaces of priests during the Mass may be voluntary or involuntary.
But let’s say that the Holy Father was truly holding back tears or tearing up and not holding back a burp, that’s the problem with the modern Mass, the piety and showmanship of the celebrant as he facing the congregation throughout the Mass!
Pope Leo isn’t this way, but many priest in fact enjoy being the star of the Mass and milk their showmanship abilities to their pious advantage and the adulation of their groupies.
I have known priests who make all kinds of facial expressions during Mass to show how pious and holy they are.
And I ask, who cares? Well, of course their groupies care and beyond that no one does. But today the cult of the personality of the priest is on steroids and it is due to the Modern Mass that feeds the narcissism of some priests.
None of this was or is now possible with the Ancient Order of the Traditional Mass. Ad orientem should be mandated by the new pope for the modern Mass as well as a thorough return to Sacrosanctum Concilium to revise the revised Mass as demanded by that document not the committee that Pope Paul VI established and codified the silly and deleterious reforms deconstructing the Mass in a way never envisioned by Vatican II.
And every disobedience by priests and bishops that has led to the codifying of altar girls, various illicit ways of receiving Holy Communion and the liberal use of extraordinary Communion Ministers and the Common Chalice needs to be revisited as to why original disobediences led to codifying disobediences!
14 comments:
It’s called liturgical development!
…or resourcement.
It was the path of least resistance for feminized males running things
Father McDonald said..."as well as a thorough return to Sacrosanctum Concilium to revise the revised Mass as demanded by that document not the committee that Pope Paul VI established and codified the silly and deleterious reforms deconstructing the Mass in a way never envisioned by Vatican II."
Pope Saint John Paul II declared:
"With a view to the practical implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Liturgy, Pope Paul VI instituted a Consilium later the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and they carried out the task entrusted to them with generosity, competence and promptness."
"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 selfless 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
Pope Benedict taught that the new Mass was not in continuity with what had preceded in terms of order and reverence. He desired a reform of the modern Mass in continuity with the 1962 Missal. I stand by that and pray Pope Leo does too and he restore SP.
If Msgr Ravelli keeps moving the crucifix it might speed up the process of liturgical reform LOL. The holy father appears miffed at times about it.
Just as at the Council of Trent, the implementation of the conciliar decrees was left to the pope to implement. For example, Trent was not against some use of the vernacular but the pope thought not.
Paul VI formed a commission of experts who consulted with the bishops still sitting in council and approved the reforms - a collegial act. The majority of bishops voted in favour of the reformed rite (albeit with some adjustments) when attending the experimental mass. Indeed, Bishops Conferences throughout the world sought permissions to go further than the initial reforms.
The bishops got what they wanted, and more!
LOL!
MT Suit is a waste of time - gloss over his umhinged Satanic ravings
Father McDonald said...
"...as well as a thorough return to Sacrosanctum Concilium to revise the revised Mass as demanded by that document not the committee that Pope Paul VI established and codified the silly and deleterious reforms deconstructing the Mass in a way never envisioned by Vatican II."
"Pope Benedict taught that the new Mass was not in continuity with what had preceded in terms of order and reverence."
=======
Father McDonald, based upon your above bleak assessment of the liturgical reform, there is little wonder as to why various "traditionalists" trashed Summorum Pontificum.
There is little wonder as to why more than a few "traditionalists" do not want any part of the "new Mass."
There is little wonder as to why many within the TLM Movement have rejected Pope Benedict XVI's claim:
"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."
=======
Why would any "traditionalist" accept Pope Benedict XVI's declaration that TLM communities are not permitted to cast aside the "new (liturgical) books"?
Pope Benedict XVI declared:
"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.
Why would a "traditionalist" priest offer...why would a "traditionalist" laymen wish to assist at a...Mass that is far removed from Sacrosanctum Concilium?
=======
Father McDonald, you described the liturgical reforms as "deleterious."
Father, you stated that "Pope Benedict taught that the new Mass was not in continuity with what had preceded in terms of order and reverence."
Therefore, why would any Catholic...not just a "traditionalist," but any Catholic...embrace the "new Mass"?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said...Father McDonald said...
"...as well as a thorough return to Sacrosanctum Concilium to revise the revised Mass as demanded by that document not the committee that Pope Paul VI established and codified the silly and deleterious reforms deconstructing the Mass in a way never envisioned by Vatican II."
=======
Father McDonald, should one accept your above comment as valid, then it is difficult to reject the following from Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X"
"With Summorum Pontificum...this motu proprio, which remained flawed, was based on an error: two forms of the same rite of Mass, and above all, I would like to add, the illusion of improving something in the current crisis without discussing the causes of the crisis.
"This was the error of Pope Benedict XVI and the limitations of this motu proprio: it just could not work. It could work for a while, but sooner or later it would lead to what has happened."
"We have the experiment of Pope Benedict XVI and it cannot work: to put truth next to error; to put the two Masses next to each other, so that one can “fertilize” the other; to have “a reform of the reform through continuity”… it is a total illusion."
Mark Thomas
Because of his writing style and papolatrous content and need to go on and on, including multiple comments, I suspect he may have autism. If that be the case, perhaps it would be charitable to cut him some slack. I simply pass over whatever he writes as not being worth my time as it's so predictable.
I agree. SC very clearly called for a reform of the liturgy so there can be no going back to 1962. However there could be more flexibility within the new rite for traditional options within the scope of SC at the bishop’s or preferably the bishop’s conference’s discretion so there is some conformity regionally.
Therefore only freestanding altars to be built in new churches / readings in the vernacular from the ambo / the congregation to make their responses (ie no old style old masses), no black vestments for funerals (with an exception for all souls maybe) but ad orentium / greater use of Latin and chant / sung antiphons to be encouraged.
I would say SC called for freestanding altars for a reason ie to facilitate mass facing the people (not just so it could be incensed all the way round) so this should be the norm where possible. Our prototype should be the Roman Basilica’s particularly St Peter’s the mother church which all have freestanding altars facing the congregation.
My gripe is a new priest arriving in a parish and suddenly imposing their idiosyncratic preferences on congregations which is often what happened with the TLM here in the UK.
If there is a place for the TLM then it is away from parish churches, in secondary chapels and shrines etc and maybe the cathedral with one traditional parish per diocese. However, I don’t think an occasional TLM in parish churches or as a second option on a weekday is totally out of the question. For example, Westminster Cathedral used to have an annual High Requiem Mass and the Brompton Oratory has a TLM as one of several daily masses.
I also agree with Francis that the other sacraments should only be allowed in the new rite (with exception for traditional orders).
I meant old style low masses.
Post a Comment