tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post3573068093609640862..comments2024-03-28T05:17:04.006-04:00Comments on southern orders: THIS IS WORTH REPEATING: WHEN IT COMES TO THE TWO FORMS OF THE ONE LATIN RITE, THE POST-VATICAN II PERSPECTIVE IS PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD AS "BOTH/AND" NOT "EITHER/OR"Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74261829821561784542016-03-28T14:22:37.898-04:002016-03-28T14:22:37.898-04:00Pope Paul VI ... did not repress the 1962 Missal a...<i> Pope Paul VI ... did not repress the 1962 Missal altogether either</i><br />But he did suppress the old liturgy nearly completely. In my view, he did not have the authority either to create a Novus Ordo nor to suppress the old Mass--as Pope Benedict more or less said, the pope can't just do whatever he wants. But Paul thought he could, and very few bishops stood up to him. Thank goodness for Lefebvre.<br /><br />As for JPII, I think it's fair to say that when it came to the liturgy he didn't 'get it'. In his indult he spoke with some surprise of 'the problem' of attachment to the old rite. I suspect that behind the Iron Curtain there were more important things to worry about--just like in the Middle East today (with a nod to the first 2 comments). I was surprised how few people there were when I attended an EF Mass in Krakow Cathedral 2 years ago. Poles had bigger worries than we did.<br /><br />It took Benedict, himself a <i>peritus</i> at VII, to re-open the doors to tradition and continuity. I might add here that another <i>peritus</i>, none other than Hans Küng, has gone on record as saying those who want to worship with the old Missal should be allowed to. But there remains a hard core of 'progressives' who are determined to prevent people from being able to do that.Tony Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10862727279147129707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-39310517473808944102016-03-28T10:38:08.634-04:002016-03-28T10:38:08.634-04:00When Benedict talked about 'two forms' of ...When Benedict talked about 'two forms' of the one Latin Rite, the Ordinariate Missal, which sneakily inserted elements of the Tridentine Rite under the cover of 'Anglican patrimony'(!), had not yet appeared. So what we have here is a mixing of 'forms', which presumably is licit, as opposed to a mixing of 'rites', which is not. The Roman Rite in its 1962 form and the 1970 Novus Ordo are in fact as distinct as rites as it is possible to get, and Benedict deliberately concocted the novel term 'forms' for good reasons.<br /><br />Ironically, the Novus Ordo is capable of so many different interpretations as to 'ars celebrandi' as well as allowing a babel of tongues which may or may not be accurate renditions of a Latin 'Urtext' that any sense of universality as regards liturgy exists in only the most tenuous form. It doesn't just vary from country to country, it varies from parish to parish to a bewildering extent. There is a sort of 'mean of mediocrity' since priests of a certain age had a similar liturgical formation; when I drive past a Catholic church I have some idea of what its Sunday Mass will be like and I am not tempted to go there.<br /><br />To expect a Vatican dicastery to bring order out of this chaos is wildly unrealistic. Bugnini in his memoirs boasted how easy it was to outmanoeuvre the Sacred College of Rites from 1948 onwards and that body, unlike its modern counterpart, was reputed to have had teeth. Sorry, Cardinal Sarah - anything you say will simply be ignored, as your predecessor Cardinal Arinze discovered with Redemptionis Sacramentum twelve years ago. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-66347825175270825782016-03-28T10:36:56.894-04:002016-03-28T10:36:56.894-04:00"Elevating the horizontal, sociological aspec..."Elevating the horizontal, sociological aspect of the liturgy to an idol....". Unfortunately, Father, that was already happening in the 1962 Missal. The idea of active participation of the priesthood of the laity in the liturgy had really caught on by the second world war and the 1962 Missal saw a lot of changes from its previous incarnation. John XXIII made a lot of changes in addition to inserting the name of St Joseph into the Roman Canon, an act that itself opened up the way to making the radical changes of 1970 possible. The 1962 Missal differs quite a bit from the pre-1955 Missals going back to the 8th century on this point of active participation, that sociological aspect of the liturgy.<br /><br />I don't know what to make of the Liturgical Movement any more. Its original intention of teaching the wonders of the Sacred Liturgy so everyone could spiritually participate more fully in it sounds good in theory. But practically speaking, who besides intellectuals would really appreciate doing this? The solution for active participation was to change the liturgy so anyone of any intellectual ability could participate more fully in it. Simplification became a convenient tool for this. But there was more: ideological blindness.<br /><br />Take as example the 1955 changes to the Paschal vigil. These tried to make the "show" more palatable to an audience as opposed to offering God one's devotion. But in doing so, we find that the changes were also anti-women, anti-ecumenical, imported the secular style of Broadway experimental shows of the times where the audience becomes part of the performance, and the worst, it made the Paschal candle into an idol for worship. With a few minor changes, these were imported directly into 1970 Missal. It is unbelievable how this was allowed to happen. But that name that keeps popping up through all this is the "despicable Bugnini", more of a manipulator that a scholar according to Bouyer. It is amazing that he did not succeed in removing the Exsultet and Roman Canon from the Roman liturgy. <br /><br /> Victor Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-36824950026305260162016-03-28T10:33:58.834-04:002016-03-28T10:33:58.834-04:00The story is also being reported on Drudge, I trul...The story is also being reported on Drudge, I truly hope and pray the MSM will report this EVIL, surely the MSM cannot ignore this story, I know they are in love with Islam but my God how can they not report the crucifixion of a Roman Catholic priest?? Do the liberals which include gays, feminists, environmentalists, pop stars, actors, Democrats, atheists, understand they would be the first people to DIE under Sharia Law, I never understood why of all people the above listed are not protesting the loudest against Islamic radicalism? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-36927179609953208462016-03-28T10:27:04.852-04:002016-03-28T10:27:04.852-04:00Here is an update from Breitbart.com that the Indi...Here is an update from Breitbart.com that the Indian Roman Catholic priest who was taken by ISIS on March 4th in Yemen and shot and killed 4 nuns in the back of their heads was tortured and crucified on Good Friday according to the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna Christoph Schonborn during his homily in Vienna. All five worked in an home for the elderly whether Muslim or Christian, it was run by Mother Teresa's Sisters of Charity. This is from the religion of "peace" my friends this is truly horrific indeed and will not end soon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com