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.
9 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
Anthony said..."He (Louie) 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."
=======
Anthony, Holy Mother Church has confirmed repeatedly that Her post-Vatican II liturgical reform conformed to Vatican II's liturgical teachings.
Pope Saint John Paul II, for example, had taught the following:
"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 self less 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".
"The task of promoting the renewal of the Liturgy pertains in the first place to the Apostolic See. 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".
=======
Pope Benedict XVI declared:
"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."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I have also read Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter and cautiously agree with Mark Thomas, subject to what might be revealed by further evidence. Even if most of the bishops responding to the questionnaire did not call for the action taken by Pope Francis, how large a minority expressed the concerns that Francis says “preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.”? 20%, 30%, 40% or even 49%? Do we know the answer? As I indicated in an earlier thread, it is suspicious that the purported document with the responses leaked by Diane Montagna mentions hardly any negative evaluations, only positive ones. Why present such a one-sided listing?
Moreover, we should not overlook the fact that Francis states in the letter that he is also “saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that ‘in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions’” and asks the bishops “to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses.”
Mark J.
We are going to have to disagree on this. I find no other reason for Pope Francis to mention the wishes of the episcopate than to give the impression that they wanted restrictions on the old Mass.
As for the attacks against the Council, these rose in response to the false premise that the Council called for the post conciliar liturgical revolution. It did not. Even the new Mass did not. The best way, then and now, to address the attacks against the Council is to acknowledge that Vatican II did not call for this revolution, and to welcome a more traditional interpretation of it. Suppressing the traditional Mass only reinforces the false view that it was the intention of the Council to suppress, rather than modify, the old Mass and replace it with a new one.
Mark Thomas,
You wrote: "Anthony, Holy Mother Church has confirmed repeatedly that Her post-Vatican II liturgical reform conformed to Vatican II's liturgical teachings."
True, but what is experienced in your typical parish is not the liturgical reform as approved by the Church and contained in the new Missal. This has provisions that would allow for a very traditional form of the new Mass. Unfortunately, this has been all but suppressed. Thus the faithful are left with a more radical reform than what was promulgated.
It is disingenuous to demand that faithful Catholics abandon the form of the Mass that was celebrated for over a thousand years and accept the new Mass when a legitimate traditional form of that very Mass is itself not accepted by those pushing for a reform. And this is the dishonesty of the liturgical revolutionaries. They insist not that we merely accept the new Mass, but the new Mass as they would have it celebrated; and that to object to this is to reject Vatican II. They are the ones who have set up the false dichotomy of radical reform or rejection of the Council. They are the ones who have created the situation where the only available option for a traditional form of worship is the old Mass. They too need to accept the reformed liturgy in its completeness, including those provisions for a thoroughly traditional form of it.
How many times have complaints about abuses in the liturgy been made without actually naming what those abuses are or without doing anything about them? I remind you that Communion in the hand and altar girls were first introduced as abuses but never stopped, until they finally became accepted. And the major abuse that is never mentioned is the suppression of those options that allow for a traditional form of the reformed liturgy. Exhibit 1: the recent proposal by Bishop Martin of the Diocese of Charlotte. How many diocese are those very same restrictions present in an unwritten form?
MT Suit comes to the battle of the wits unarmed!
Mark J,
Pray tell what did Pope Francis do to curtail the abuses like the Italian priest celebrating “Mass” on a raft in the water, in his bathing suit? Rien!
This is an act that earns you a place in Hell and there is no excuse for this priest not being laicized along with the bishop whom he was subordinate too. Basta!
Post a Comment