Let me be clear. What Pope Benedict eventually desired by allowing the older and newer forms of the Liturgy to coexist for a time is that both would influence the other and then a third post-Vatican II Roman Missal would be developed and imposed on the Church as the normative Latin Rite Liturgy.
Pope Francis has placed that organic development initiated by his two previous predecessors into arrested development.
Thus, we are in an odd state where we can’t rely on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in the 1962 Form and its rubrics to guide this organic development to a third normative Roman Missal to replace both the 1970’s and 1962 Roman Missals.
Idiosyncratic celebrations of the Ordinary Form by idiosyncratic celebrants will continue to go forward full speed ahead by both orthodox and heterodox celebrants.
What is needed is a new Roman Missal that is in its new ethos similar to the 1962 Roman Missal that does not allow for idiosyncratic celebrants and celebrations.
The new revised/reformed normative Roman Missal of the future must take into consideration everything written in the article I post below the talking points of the article, which is basically what I have been writing for years on this blog!
“Mystery”, that is, the ethos of the 1962 liurigcal books has to be returned to the normative post Vatican II Mass.
The article I post below these talking points of the article shows the way. Will Rome listen under the current regime? No! God willing, the next one will!
How “mystery” has been gutted
Loss of Latin
Movement of the tabernacle
Removal of altar rails
Communion fast
Standing for Holy Communion
Mass facing the people: Versus populum
Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion
Communion in the hand
Read the article post at “Catholic World Report” below:
10 comments:
LOSS OF LATIN:
Hindus have Sanskrit and we must accept that. Muslims have Arabic and we must accept that. Jews (at least before the next genocide the scum in Washington seem to be enabling) have Hebrew we must accept that. BUT CATHOLICS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO USE THEIR OWN SACRED LANGUAGE?
MOVING THE TABERNACLE:
If you walk in to a synagogue, there is NO QUESTION as to where the Torah is located. If you go into any local Hare Krishna temple, their false deities are on full display. We are blessed with the Divine Presence and the "intellectuals" have invented some garbage about "static" vs. "active" Presence and imposed it upon us poor unwashed.
REMOVAL OF ALTAR RAILS:
Reverence is not only NOT encouraged, it is no longer tolerated.
COMMUNION FAST:
The fast reminds us that we are preparing to receive the Body of Christ. Ignoring and minimizing it only reduces it to a "snackrament".
STANDING FOR HOLY COMMUNION:
Keep it casual folks--like I said, it's just a "snackrament".
EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS OF HOLY COMMUNION:
Oh, you mean "Eucharistic Ministers"? Again, keeping it casual and eliminating the privilege of the ordained.
COMMUNION IN THE HAND:
Less than 30 percent of Catholics now believe in the Real Presence. Satanic covens can now more easily obtain a Host to profane for their blasphemous rites.
Mystery is for OTHER religions. Our pope and his cronies, including too many members of the USCCB will beat us with their "rigidity stick" until we cooperate with their auto-demolition of the faith. The Ape of the Church is rising to take possession of the empty facade they've created.
Stupid Catholics! Don't you understand what's REALLY important? We have to save the planet! All hail, mother earth!
"What Pope Benedict eventually desired by allowing the older and newer forms of the Liturgy to coexist for a time is that both would influence the other and then a third post-Vatican II Roman Missal would be developed and imposed on the Church as the normative Latin Rite Liturgy."
Are we sure about this? I don't recall reading about this specific end goal, though I don't purport to be an expert. Regardless, it does make perfect sense. To "lick" the liturgy war problem, drop back 5 yd and punt might be the best strategic solution. Marry the best of both worlds hopefully resulting in an ideal, if 'ideal" hasn't become too subjective.
Unfortunately, there appears to be little appetite for this at present. Additionally, I have little confidence that a future pontificate will take a different view. I think competing interests will prevent them from "seeing" a problem / the problem. While I hope for an improved ordinary form, our reality might be trying to make the best of what we have. I say this because my Roman archdiocese, for example, is conservative and traditional yet not overly "high church" as there isn't anything that would force them to be. If interviewed, they will likely say they adhere faithfully to the provided rubrics, there's nothing requiring more bells and smells, the people's spiritual needs are being met and they seem accepting and satisfied.
One other thing...regarding the loss of mystery bullets, a new missal might not be necessary, in principle, in order to correct. To me, and as a mental health exercise, creating a separation between where the problem started and its resolution (a new missal) might be the only way to truly resolve and get everyone realigned. Likewise the Council. There almost needs to be something in between it and us to just get everyone over it already. Too much time has been devoted to agonizing over its perceived fruits, unlocking its teachings, just beginning to understand and a faithful implementation. I think it was and continues to be too much of a disruption to ever hope to "understand/fully implement". Its become, in part, whatever you want it to be. Perhaps we're nearing a time when it might be possible to just lock it down as a part of history so that we can move forward.
Fr Allan
I would respectfully take issue with your contention that Benedict XVI wanted a third Roman Missal to be developed (contrived?) and imposed on the Church. Ratzinger, judging by his writings, came to realize that the essence of the crisis, which he identified as the 'disintegration of the liturgy' lay in the belief that the liturgy can be shaped at will and then 'imposed' in the way that 20th century pontiffs were prone to do, an error that reached its apogee under Paul VI. As an erstwhile advocate for the Liturgical Movement this conclusion must have cost some soul-searching.
Liturgy did not develop as a result of papal mandate. Pius V did not impose a new Mass and temper this by allowing rites with a 200-year provenance to continue; he positively ordered that these rites be continued since they were in line with liturgical tradition.
During Benedict XVI's pontificate traditionalists were constantly demanding that Rome 'mandate' this, that, and the other; they did not realize, as Benedict did, that this type of regulation was the cause of the problem and not its solution. Summorum Pontificum did not mandate anything - although the idea of 'two forms of the one Roman Rite' was a legal fiction, the genius of the document was that it permitted what had always been permitted, and therefore cannot be simply cancelled.
John Nolan,
I concur with your statement
John, I believe we have to understand what the Council Fathers desired for the liturgy to allow for actual participation. I think their greatest concern was that the laity were doing other things during Mass rather than focusing on the Mass itself. They were zoning out, praying other devotions or simply attending without any real engagement with the liturgy. I certainly remember that aspect in my home parish in Augusta which was a microcosm of cultures at the time because of the Army influence and so many war brides from all over Germany and Japan.
I do believe that the template for the revision of the books has to be the 1962 Roman Missal and the other liturgical books of that period.
Some Vernacular; some trimming of excesses (think pontifical Masses in this regard). But also, and I know you might object to this, but the double confiteors at the PATFOTA, the double Communion Rites, the additions at the end of Mass, Last Gospel, Leonine Prayers.
Perhaps the Mass was too robotic and overly prescribed with rubrics. If so, the opposite it true today which has created a mess.
Apart from all of that more vernacular certainly assist in helping the laity to be more fully engaged in the Mass even if nothing else had changed.
All over Europe and Japan
My experience of Sunday Mass was quite different from what say theirs was. Our principal Mass on Sunday was a Missa Cantata and the congregation chanted the Ordinary. We were not silent spectators. That is why the "reforms" were so troubling to me. With the reforms, at least in my parish, people became less engaged and over time many stopped coming. A real "success" story
I watched a documentary on the construction of the M1 motorway in 1958-9. Many of the workers (navvies) were Irish, and a hut had been erected on the site to serve as a chapel. The immaculate Roman-style vestments of the priest contrasted with the working clothes and muddy boots of the congregation, who were following the Mass intently, using the CTS 'Simple Prayer Book', price one shilling, which contained the order of Mass in Latin and English.
John Nolan,
That kind of destroys the lefty narrative because those blokes were actually participating prior to Vatican Disaster II
Post a Comment