The “New Liturgical Movement’s” article, has two things I have proposed, the Ordinariate route to the TLM and a “reform of the reform” of the Bugnini Mass to make it more in line with what Sacrosanctum recommended for a future reform.
I would add, that returning the magisterial document of Summorum Pontificum should not be done as a motu-Proprio but a more significant document like an apostolic letter or even a Bull. That would prevent future popes canceling various magisterial teachings of predecessor popes.
What many people, like Pope Benedict and the article I link below, lament, is that the requests of Vatican II concerning the Church’s liturgy were manufactured in a very brief time period and not allowed to develop organically.
How does one, then, promote organic development over time, on the heels of an Ecumenical Council which said the liturgical books should be revised to promote actual interior and exterior participation, noble simplicity, more Scripture and intelligibility and allowing some vernacular but maintaining Latin?
Where would what Vatican II requested for the reform of the Mass, be today if it were left to organic development over a period of time and how is that done in a universal way??????
You can read the wonderfully excellent recommendation to Pope Leo XIV by pressing the NLM title below:
11 comments:
"I would add, that returning the magisterial document of Summorum Pontificum should not be done as a motu-Proprio but a more significant document like an apostolic letter or even a Bull. That would prevent future popes canceling various magisterial teachings of predecessor popes."
I'm not sure that liturgical guidelines can be established in such as way as to prevent changes by subsequent papal authority.
"Quo Primum" was cited by traddies as a way, they thought, to brand the changes to the liturgy that came after Vatican Two as invalid.
Quo Primum: "Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing."
Fr. Edward McNamara wrote: "[L]egal expressions such as "which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein" cannot be literally interpreted as binding on possible later actions of Pope St. Pius V or upon his successors."
Liturgical law is not a matter of divine revelation. Therefore, it is always open to revisions such as the removal of various superfluities.
FrAJM, whatndo you mean by ‘organic’ development?
I am not sure what is meant by organic development as it concerns the implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. I think Pope Benedict understood it as what was happening in Europe prior to the Council, but in a few dioceses or parishes—the laity were asked to sing and their parts may have been in the vernacular. In this country, and elsewhere the Tridentine Mass, without any changes, was celebrated facing the congregation well before Vatican II. I don’t see how one can say removing almost most the private, quiet priest’s devotinal prayers is organic development—that is chopping down. I can see saying the Canon aloud as organic development but not the dumbing down of its rubrics. I don’t see additional Eucharistic Prayers as organic development, in fact the Roman Canon’s exclusive use would be organic development. In the Sung Tridentine Mass, there are actually two things happening, The priest is saying the laity’s parts of the Mass as the choir sings them (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei—there’s a disconnect and not unity and after the he says the Sanctus, he prays the first part of the Canon while the choir/congregation is still singing the Sanctus—brining that together where the priest and laity/choir are singing and acting together is organic development and was implemented already in the Tridentine 1964/5 Missal.
Peter Kwasniewski, via the NLM article in question:
"The solution is to return to the dispensation of Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict’s motu proprio was wise precisely because it addressed all the problems that the current proposals fail to solve:"
=======
That is interesting as Peter Kwasniewski has spent years informing us that Summorum Pontificum had been packed with lies and destined to flop.
Examples from Peter Kwasnewski's trashing of Summorum Pontificum:
-- "Summorum...is no more than damage control; it cannot be a pillar, much less a foundation, of a permanent structure. And those who lean on it too much will find themselves crushed by its incoherences."
-- "In fact, it would not be too much to say that there are fictions, even lies, in the document."
-- "Summorum Pontificum needlessly complicates the situation and multiplies the possibilities of bureaucratic stonewalling."
-- "Summorum Pontificum subtly holds the traditional liturgy hostage, or gives it, as it were, second-class citizenship."
-- "This, then, is the fundamental problem with Summorum Pontificum: it is internally incoherent, founded on a monumental contradiction caused by the worst abuse of papal power in the history of the Church.
"The motu proprio reflects and reinforces false principles of ecclesiology and liturgy that led to the very crisis to which it was a partial response."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Interesting that you are stuck in a person’s past views and don’t celebrate their growth and development. You do that to poor Pope Benedict too! Interesting.
Father McDonald, I had noted simply the analysis that Peter Kwasniewski had, for years, rendered in regard to Summorum Pontificum. But suddenly, he has contradicted himself in colossal fashion.
Either his prior analysis Summorum Pontificum had been horrifically inept...he had revealed himself as an extremely incompetent, unreliable commenter...
...or, the supposed lies, inconsistencies, and muddle thinking have disappeared suddenly and magically from Summorum Pontificum.
I believe that it is the former.
Peter Kwasniewski is an incompetent, extremely unreliable commenter in regard to liturgical issues.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father, I have not done "that to poor Pope Benedict too!"
I have simply repeated that which Joseph Ratzinger had declared. He insisted that post-1968 A.D., he had not abandoned his liberal views...the radical reforms that he had played a key role in having developed for the Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Yes, you always repeat what people said in the past and not how they grew and corrected themselves. Those poor people!
He’s simply matured and corrected what you call in the most uncharitable way, via your flawed opinion, btw, that he is a stupid, inconsistent liar. Yikes. You agree with Pope Francis’ TC although when Benedict was pope until TC was promulgated about three or four years ago, you supported SP. you changed and found Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum unworthy of your continued support. You changed.
Fine. Peter Kwasniewski has changed his tune in regard to Summorum Pontificum. His analysis of said document, that he had proclaimed for years, had been flawed to its core.
Contrary to his prior claims, Summorum Pontificum had not been packed with lies...was not muddled...was not the destructive document that Peter Kwasniewski had proclaimed.
Peter Kwasniewski has made it clear that for years, he had served as an inept commentator in regard to liturgical matters/Summorum Pontificum.
But that is not news.
In the Mass of the Ages documentary, Peter Kwasniewski declared that Sacrosanctum Concilium was "a conservative document...We’re not talking about a radical overhaul of the Catholic Church’s worship. We’re talking about adding a little bit of vernacular here and there. We’re talking about modifying the calendar a little bit.”
Peter Kwasniewsi, via Crisis Magazine:
"Sacrosanctum Concilium is not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church.
"I know that it’s painful for many good Catholics to admit that it is a corrupt and corrosive document, but we must judge the tree by its fruits."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."Yes, you always repeat what people said in the past and not how they grew and corrected themselves."
Sorry, Father...
At least in regard to Peter Kwasniewski: Until his article three days ago in NLM, I had not encountered any change in his years-long war against Summorum Pontificum.
May he now convince various fellow leading radtrads to at least recognize that Summorum Pontificum was not the destructive document that have long portrayed.
Also, may Peter Kwasniewski repudiate his repeated denunciations of Vatican II, the Holy Mass of Pope Paul VI, Vatican II Era Popes...
=======
In regard to holy Joseph Ratzinger:
He insisted via interviews with journalist Peter Seewald that he had not repudiated his (Joseph Ratzinger's) decades-earlier work that had culminated in the Church's radical reformation.
Joseph Ratzinger succeeded in that endeavor at Vatican II and even beyond.
He had made it clear via his interviews in question, as well as additional channels, that he had remained, to the end of his earthly existence, on board with liberalism/progressivism.
Therefore, my references to Joseph Ratzinger's pre-1968 A.D. (the year that you have claimed that he had repudiated progressivism) work/declarations remain legitimate.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment