The video I post below is not the rewriting of history, but the telling of history and the errors of a post-Vatican II commission established by Pope St. Paul VI to revise the Mass. Ideologies beyond Vatican II were incorporated into this revision.
The revision asked for by Vatican II was a conservative revision. I continue to assert that most of the revisions were meant for Pontifical Masses by bishops, not your ordinary Sunday Mass, Low, High or Solemn High in local parishes.
I do believe that both forms of the Mass as we experienced it until a few months ago was the way forward. There should never have been an attempt in 1969 to suppress the pre-Vatican II Mass. The revised Mass should have been allowed to be celebrated along side the ancient Mass.
Where did things go wrong after this first horrible mistake of suppressing the ancient Mass?
1. The complete elimination of Latin in practice. The best form of inculturation would be local languages, or the vernacular. I have always said that the fixed parts of the Mass should have remained in Latin and the laity taught to sing or say those parts that pertained to them. The changing parts in the vernacular as well as the Liturgy of the Word should be in the vernacular or Latin.
2. The encouragement to ad lib during Mass, add commentary, and insert the priest or bishop’s personality, here, there and everywhere. That simply can’t happen at the ancient Mass except at the homily. The disruption to prayer by commentary and ad libbing is too much for so many, so as to be a complete break with prayer at the beginning of Mass which begins with the Entrance Chant leading to the Penitential Act. Why do we need bishops or priests ad libbing at the introduction to the Penitential Act and in a very secular way with welcomes, hellos, good morning, have a nice day? It destroys the flow of prayer.
3. Finally the template forward is to restore the traditional order of the Mass to the current modern Missal with the PATFOTA, the official introit, Offertory and communion Antiphons and the older offertory prayers, and three-fold “Lord I not worthy.”
4. Restore kneeling for Holy Communion and exclusively receiving on the tongue and ad orientem for the direction of the Mass and pre-Vatican II choreography and rubrics for the ordering the sanctuary.
Restore the pre-Vatican II rubrics to the Roman Canon. Only have two canons, the Roman for Sunday and Eucharistic Prayer II for daily Mass as a option.
Eliminate options and stick to the older order of the Mass.
Watch this video and learn from it:
A priest friend of mine was a peritus at the Council and he mentioned to me before he died that your point number 1 with regards to Latin is what the Council Fathers intended but they somehow were buffaloed into all vernacular later on by listening to the experts like the disgraced Milwaukee Archbishop Weakland. I believe what you propose could happen once the spirit of Vatican II crowd has gone to their “reward.” An example of this happening is the Church of England which eventually recovered a great deal of what had been lost at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England
Father McDonald said..."I do believe that both forms of the Mass as we experienced it until a few months ago was the way forward."
Father McDonald, here is the problem...or here are the problems...
Pope Francis accommodated for years "traditionalists" who, in many cases, were/are Vatican II haters/liturgical warmongers.
The liturgical warmongers in question poisoned the TLM Movement.
The folks in question have insisted that the Vatican II/Novus Ordo must be destroyed...only the TLM is to survive.
They even declared that Summorum Pontificum is based upon lies...and is unsustainable.
John Nolan has insisted that Peter Kwasniewski, a prominent TLM advocate, as well as Vatican II/Novus Ordo Mass hater, is a first-rate scholar whose pronouncements are to be taken seriously, declared in a 2021 A.D. Crisis Magazine article, "Summorum Pontificum at Fourteen: Its Tragic Flaws":
"This, then, is the fundamental problem with Summorum Pontificum: it is internally incoherent, founded on a monumental contradiction...Summorum Pontificum subtly holds the traditional liturgy hostage, or gives it, as it were, second-class citizenship."
Even Summorum Pontificum is trashed by the radical liturgical warmongers in question.
Liturgical peace is impossible with said folks.
That is the problem with the Vatican II/Novus Ordo Mass haters in question.
Again, the liturgical warmongers in question poisoned the TLM Movement.
In regard to the video in question, Mike Lewis (Where Peter Is blog) noted:
"The illicitly ordained and suspended Alcuin Reid shows up in the first 5 minutes. We're off to a start..."
"The rest of the film was boilerplate traditionalist talking points."
"Very interesting how they feature milder, less radical versions of Reid, Kwasniewski, Taylor Marshall, etc, as the interview subjects.
"Trying to hide their real views from the audience."
Our Knights of.Columbus ouncil hosted the premier of that film earlier this month; it was produced by several you g men in our parish and elsewhere. These you g people are asking questions about the execution of Vatican II and the best situation found so far is the it needs defending from its practice.
IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT THE REVISION OF THE LITURGY ACTUALLY FOLLOW WHAT VATICAN II, MEANING SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM ASKED?
The Roman hierarchy 99.9% wholly and completely incapable of adhering to, propagating and handing on sacred tradition - "Save your people, O God, and bless your inheritance!"
Ideology, not tradition, is the guide making the Roman Church into both a laughing stock as well as a very empty shadow of its former self.
Case in point: Read this article and look at the stats regarding attendance at Roman Mass in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia:
Cultural and demographic shift aside, why are people so horrifyingly disengaged? COVID was the reason many, evidently, were looking for to disengage even further. The Philadelphia archdiocese is far from the most liberal liturgically. What is offered is mostly homogenized, its rehearsed but, it just feels mostly devoid of any emotion. As I've said before, to me, the Novus Ordo is functional, it's just not beautiful or emotional. It does not engage all the senses. Certainly, the typical Novus Ordo church, even if it contains traditional elements, just seems somehow disfunctional with odd arrangements and unsatisfying traditional teasers.
Fr, I watched your video and I'm honestly appalled. Just how do you expect the people to participate with all your fancy vestments and you having your back to them while the choir is doing their own thing? You aren't welcoming, you aren't smiling at the people, being creative and making them laugh. Disgracefully rigid. And, and, where's the laity? I thought you were told (again) by the Liturgy Committee that you are to sit there until it's time for your part! How dare you FORCE this on the people! Vat II FREED us from this. That altar makes me about sick to look at it. What happened to that beautiful tableau Janet and Susan spent hours arranging where you're standing?? Don't you care about them and all the time they spend making that altar so incredible to look at? I mean, who's going to make those scenes that we look at down there if they up and quit? And how dare you froo-froo up whatever it is that your doing up there with all that smoke - I mean come on, we JUST DON'T DO THAT anymore. Again, I thought the Liturgy Committee told you, and you agreed, that if you insist on using incense, you would send out an email warning the people at least 48 hours before so they can make other arrangements. I mean really, and you wonder why people don't come to Church anymore? Chop! Chop! Speed it up, don't you get how busy people are??? You need to get yourself to a good guitar mass and get with the times!
Oh wait, I think you're showing us something about what Jesus did for us, right???
It's a 2 way street. For as much as those who favor tradition haven't helped themselves along, equally, and perhaps to a greater extent, the reformists have really nuked the Roman Church's liturgical traditions. There was and still is deep seeded hatred of tradition by many of those who continue to have the upper hand. To not consider this is utterly unfair. Traditionalists are not perfect and are not without sin, but, clearly something else is wrong here leading to this:
The Mass is said by the priest while all others present participate mainly silently. Music is not necessary but good music can enhance the occasion.
There are only some prayers where the laity also participate audibly. The many options introduced by priest and/or lay people can render the NO a cacophony. When this happens, the Mass prayers instead uniting the participants only leaves them excited but mainly just confused. After the hour of "worship" many walk away disappointed, nay! may even feel resentment at the fakery they were forced to endured. Well, what else? The music is often bad too. At my parish it has not improved any since it started in 1965. As Father often points out it can be done better. But in my experience, few care to make the effort.
The EF attracted 80% of American Roman Catholics prior to the Council on Sunday compared to 12% of American Catholics today with the OF. Please explain that or naf off
ByzRus said..."Mark Thomas: It's a 2 way street. For as much as those who favor tradition haven't helped themselves along, equally, and perhaps to a greater extent, the reformists have really nuked the Roman Church's liturgical traditions.
"There was and still is deep seeded hatred of tradition by many of those who continue to have the upper hand. To not consider this is utterly unfair. Traditionalists are not perfect and are not without sin, but, clearly something else is wrong here leading to this:"
I agree that there is a deep hatred of the TLM/Holy Tradition among many within the Church.
Said folks despise the TLM.
They oppose the TLM with the same irrational ferocity that many "traditionalists" oppose the Novus Ordo Mass/Vatican II.
The TLM haters prefer liturgical war to that of liturgical peace.
Mark Thomas, paging Mark Thomas. Answer my question please.
If you made the effort to engage with Peter Kwasniewski's argument (and also to read what he wrote on the seventh anniversary of Summorum Pontificum) you would realize that he is a long way removed from the black-and-white dualistic universe you have constructed for yourself.
In his prefaces to books by Klaus Gamber (1993) and Alcuin Reid (2005), as well as in his own 'The Spirit of the Liturgy' (2000), Joseph Ratzinger makes his principles fairly explicit. To summarize:
1. The Roman Rite (which Joseph Gelineau boasted in 1967 had been 'destroyed') was never abrogated, nor could it have been. Ironically, Gelineau lived to see SP, dying in 2008.
2. 'Reform in continuity' was replaced after the Council by a 'hermeneutic of rupture' which betrayed the ideals of the Liturgical Movement.
3. Paul VI's Mass is a new and distinct rite. The analogy is with demolishing a house down to its foundations and building a new house on the same foundations.
Clearly implicit is the contention that Paul VI, in imposing what amounted to a liturgical revolution, was acting ultra vires (and incidentally going beyond what was explicitly stated in SC).
SP does not mandate anything - Benedict XVI regarded papal mandates regarding liturgy as at least part of the problem, but obviously could not criticize his predecessor Paul VI. It is based on an overriding principle (see 1. above) but Benedict was aware that lifting restrictions on the older books would be opposed by a majority of bishops in Italy and probably in France as well. He mollified the French bishops by giving them the impression that SP was a prudential measure to placate a minority of diehards, and he came up with the legal fiction of 'two forms of the one Roman Rite' to disguise the obvious fact, which is accepted by nearly all reputable liturgical scholars, that we are talking about two distinct rites.
Kwasniewski admits the beneficial effects of SP, and pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies does not amount to 'trashing' the document. He maintains, surely correctly, that the Roman Rite exists sui generis and would do so even if SP were to be abrogated. The article in Crisis magazine appeared ten days before his successor did precisely that.
TC, badly written and vindictive, is actually based on two palpable falsehoods. Can you explain those away?
Regardless of all the bickering here with Captain Sanctimony, this video series is a great tool for reaching low-information Catholics.
If only we can overcome their unwillingness to even watch it.
Post a Comment