Catholic Truth Dissolved by Contemporary O.F. Liturgy

[RosaryCrusader]

I have seen the FSSP speak in similar terms too, especially in things which imply that the EF is superior to the OF.

I think some of the more dissident “traditionalist” ideologies are more contagious than we may have realized. Lord, have mercy.

The TLM is superior to the NO - one is a “fabrication” "a banal on-the-spot product” - the other a product of organic development over centuries with apostolic origins.

Cardinal Ratzinger:

“After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

The first thing I’m thinking in reading the OP is “Wow! How do I get to this Priest’s Church?” It’s great to hear someone with backbone once in a while. I’ve heard FSSP Priests say this in private but not public! Way to go!

 

[pnewton]

Cardinal Ratzinger:

“After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”.

Also, Cardinal Ratzinger:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=17

The Spirit of the Liturgy, the future Benedict XVI uses “liturgy” in this last sense; he makes clear his concern for the way in the Mass has been celebrated. In the book’s preface, he employs the striking metaphor of a whitewashed fresco to describe the situation of the liturgy during the Twentieth Century:

[The fresco] had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash …. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe a little background is in order here. I pasted this from a website of a church in London, where my brother was baptized in the 50’s. Perhaps it might explain the motives of calling Vatican II in the first place; maybe not. But I found it interesting nevertheless. If you have your own parishes’ pre-Vatican II history to share, I would find that interesting too.

This is not the place to discuss the radical changes that took place in the 1940s and 1950s as society settled down to years of peace and reconstruction. It was a time when the state became actively involved in social welfare, thus weakening the Church’s role in ministering to the poor. Social problems like broken homes leading to divorce or separation became more common. The immense and universal suffering of so many people during the years of war created a new generation sceptical of traditional religious values.

On the other hand many young men and women became disillusioned with the drab life of post-war Britain, and took the path to the priesthood or religious life. Church attendance began to grow, and this pattern continued until the 1960s. The Second Vatican Council brought about major changes in the way Catholics lived and worshipped. It was a genuine attempt to restructure the Church in the light of the modem world, and unfortunately there were some priests and people - who thought the changes too sudden, too radical, and too compromising in the face of a hostile, cynical and secular world.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe a little background is in order here. I pasted this from a website of a church in London, where my brother was baptized in the 50’s. Perhaps it might explain the motives of calling Vatican II in the first place; maybe not. But I found it interesting nevertheless. If you have your own parishes’ pre-Vatican II history to share, I would find that interesting too.

Thank you. I found it rather thought-provoking. It brings to light that the Church and the World was really facing some tough challenges. I do not know how much that was done was prudent or imprudent. I will just say that it was tough.