THIS WAS ANTHONY’S RESPONSE TO MT’S COMMENT ON:
"PAPAL HIJINKS: A FAIR AND BALANCED EVALUATION"
He is also being disingenuous, along with Pope Francis, in equating the Council's desire to reform the Roman rite with its wholesale replacement. Rather, what the Council called for was a modification of the existing rite "where necessary." This was adequately addressed with the reform of 1965. There was no need for a completely new rite, nor is that what the Council called for.
What happened after the Council, however, was that the liturgical revolutionaries instrumentalized the Council to advance an agenda which they could not get approved in the Council hall. They have ever since then accused anyone who has taken reservations with this more radical reform of rejecting the Council. In truth, it is those who have gone beyond the limited reform envisioned by the Council who have actually rejected it. Indeed, they have even rejected the Novus Ordo itself by restricting those legitimate options that would allow for a traditional form of its celebration. The irony of this is that by equating objections to the new Mass with rejecting Vatican II, its is they who have created that rejection by the small number of radical traditionalists who do.
MT:
I find it a little strange that you would use a Vatican II denier to discredit the views of traditionalists who accept Vatican II. This is especially true since Louie of akaCatholic is being disingenuous about Pope Francis' remarks. He says that Pope Francis was not lying when he said he "considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." The impression that is given, as it was intended to do, was that the collective opinion of the episcopate, not that of a minority with it, and that of the Congregation was negative, and that is what impelled Pope Francis to act. But this was false, and deliberately so.He is also being disingenuous, along with Pope Francis, in equating the Council's desire to reform the Roman rite with its wholesale replacement. Rather, what the Council called for was a modification of the existing rite "where necessary." This was adequately addressed with the reform of 1965. There was no need for a completely new rite, nor is that what the Council called for.
What happened after the Council, however, was that the liturgical revolutionaries instrumentalized the Council to advance an agenda which they could not get approved in the Council hall. They have ever since then accused anyone who has taken reservations with this more radical reform of rejecting the Council. In truth, it is those who have gone beyond the limited reform envisioned by the Council who have actually rejected it. Indeed, they have even rejected the Novus Ordo itself by restricting those legitimate options that would allow for a traditional form of its celebration. The irony of this is that by equating objections to the new Mass with rejecting Vatican II, its is they who have created that rejection by the small number of radical traditionalists who do.
2 comments:
This is a good comment - one with which I agree.
Since the "implementation", and up to today including commenters on your humble blog, those who embraced what happened, not what was actually called for, will manipulate their comments and criticisms of those with which they disagree accusing them of any/all that is sinful, negative, questioning how manly one is, style, style and more style as a result.
I love being Catholic, I'm fascinated by its treasure chest of liturgies and rites, however, and as an Easterner, I'm oftentimes left speechless by some of what's said - what people choose to spend their time warring over, the temporal, as opposed to our own perfection leading towards eternal salvation. I participate in this on the traditional side as what's as obvious to me as the nose on my face is something went horribly wrong and the results have been catastrophic. If catastrophe wasn't the end result, diocese wouldn't be going bankrupt, parishes wouldn't be twinned, merging, closing with warehouses being loaded to the gills with their stripped beauty.
As an Easterner, I have to wonder what the reformers were truly after? Ideology, humanity, enlightened worldliness? Did they and do they even believe in Christ, his Church the sacraments so hell bent are they to reduce meaning to the meaningless, or a simple gathering for a meal?
Despite the efforts of these folks and their supporters (I'm not sure even they know what they are ultimately supporting), Christ's perfect Church will never succumb. It's withstood and will continue to withstand whatever headwinds imperfect mortal man can create to challenge it, its authority and its relevance.
Anthony said, "He (Louie) says that Pope Francis was not lying when he said he "considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
"The impression that is given, as it was intended to do, was that the collective opinion of the episcopate, not that of a minority with it, and that of the Congregation was negative, and that is what impelled Pope Francis to act. But this was false, and deliberately so."
=======
Anthony, I disagree again with the above. As Louie noted, "Go back and scour Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter to bishops. Nowhere does Francis claim that “the world’s bishops demanded” the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum."
I have read, as well as reread, Traditionis Custodes, as well as the letter in question. Anthony, I have not, in line with Louie's above comment, found where Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) had led anybody to believe that which you had claimed via your above statement.
As Louie had noted, Pope Francis' had made it clear that his (Pope Francis') great concern pertained to the attacks against the Council.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment