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:
1 comment:
"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.
Post a Comment