Liturgical Improvisation Must End. An article

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The linked article, in the name of ending “abuses,” in reality is a criticism of the Ordinary Form and the licit options contained in the Roman Missal. What the author terms “improvisations” are the choices available to celebrants in terms of hymns, Eucharistic Prayers, etc. The unfortunate matter of Fr. Hood’s invalid Baptism is really a framing device for another criticism of priests who in fact “Say the black and do the red” but who, in doing so, use options available to them that the author wishes they did not have.
 
It’s just yet another incoherent rant by some Rad Trad self-appointed “liturgical expert” and armchair canon lawyer against the OF Mass and Non-Rad Trad Catholics in general. Yawn!
 
Last edited:
I make bold to further urge our readers to pray that this matter spur the Church to put a definitive end to the culture of liturgical abuse, and the improvisation that fosters abuse and leads to these kinds of events in the first place.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. When human actors are involved imperfections will inevitably result.
it is impossible for a priest to celebrate the modern Rite without having to continually choose among options.
Click to expand...
It’s tough let me tell you - I don’t know how I cope at times; Colgate having something like 20 different kinds of toothpaste to choose from was hard enough but this just take things too far.
it was the very same bishops who put their signatures to Sacrosanctum Concilium in the first place, thus approving the words quoted above, who then refused to say to their priests, “Thus far shalt thou come, but no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed.”
Click to expand...
Because that just works so well said no bishop ever!
There is no reason why the Church cannot say to the clergy, “You will say this Eucharistic Prayer on this day, and no other, that one on that day, and no other. This is the only vernacular hymn in this language that may substitute Ad te levavi on First Advent. These are the Prayers of the Faithful.” And so on.
Click to expand...
Elon Musk’s neural chip idea might come in handy here if we’re going to keep clergy in line. Perhaps, while we’re at it, he’d like to write my homily for me and the pastor’s note for my newsletter too. Also a roster for when I should do my chores (and precise directions on how to do them too) might come in handy.

Anyway, off to say mass and set of a few independent thought alarms while I’m at it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Preceding post: the linked article is a criticism of the Ordinary Form

Could you quote the specific passages that show that the linked article is a criticism of the ordinary form?
 
Last edited:
mdgspencer said:
Preceding post: the linked article is a criticism of the Ordinary Form
Click to expand...
Yes, in all fairness to the article’s author, I don’t think he’s against the OF nor is he a Radical Traditionalist:

(1) He strongly rebukes a user in the article’s comments section for trailing off into a rant about ‘Novus Ordo’ this and ‘Novus Ordo’ that; and

(2) He, also in the comments section, writes favourably of the Church’s agreement with the Oriental Orthodox regarding the ‘euchologically dispersed’ (I think that was the term used) nature of the Words of Institution in the Liturgy of Ss. Addai and Mari (which otherwise lacks an explicit example of it). Many Radical Traditionalists abhor this agreement as modernist, heretical, blasphemous, etc.
 
Inevitably it comes across as anti OF because improvisation isn’t an EF phenomenon.
 
Recently I remembered that I had unsubscribed from NLM’s Daily Digest. This has reminded me why.

Re: the choice the priest has in which Eucharistic Prayer to use, I wonder if the author realizes that Maronite priests get to choose from dozens and dozens more Anaphoras? Would he apply his criticism to the Maronite rite as well? 🤔
 
I hope you’re right.
I am not saying that the OF is wrong or horrible. I think that it was well-intentioned but that the way it was done, implemented, and utilised wound up causing a great deal of harm when combined with other factors outside the OF.

Had the OF been done as originally intended, according to the early designs of the members (whose work was all completely thrown out at the start of the council), had it been done organically as liturgical development had been done from the start of the Church, had the catechesis of the people been done correctly, had the societal upheavals that shook the world in the 1960s not caused such misunderstandings among the hierarchy, etc., what we would probably have by now is this:

A Church which worshipped in a liturgy which would have remained mainly in Latin, with the people knowing and understanding the Latin, with parts throughout in the vernacular, with the priest ‘ad orientem’. A Church with the old devotions, processions, saints’ days, ‘time after Pentecost’, and with the addition of new saints. A Church with beautiful music and with new music in the timeless style of sacred music. A Church with long lines for confession, with plenty of children in the congregation learning, like their ancestors before them, to enjoy the richness of the sights, sounds, smells, and ‘touch’ that they would learn about as they grew, not simply drawing pictures and learning, “Jesus loves us, be nice people”. Lots of Bible studies and people, instead of being told to ‘rebel’ and riot and ignore teaching they didn’t like being given practical help, reassurance, and help. Catholics who knew their faith and could stick to it when told they were sheeple, bigots, hateful, and old fashioned. . .and deal with a smile instead of throwing it all aside so that they could bask in the glow of ‘the world’ as ‘thinking for themselves’ (Funny how ‘thinking for oneself’ never means agreeing with the Church, only DISAGREEING!!! But thinking for oneself and disagreeing with the WORLD means one has been brainwashed!!)

We don’t have that now, and it will take a while, but I believe we will have it again when we cast aside our foolish pride and our desire to be seen as ‘acceptable’ by the world!!!
 
Last edited:
yankeesouth said:
I do think, perhaps 10 - 20 years, that the EF will be the OF.
Click to expand...
We can only hope and pray. Wouldn’t come a moment too soon for me.

This sentiment cannot be condemned as heretical, schismatic, or disobedient. Were all of the liturgical reformers (Bugnini et al) guilty of bad theology or resisting the Holy Spirit when they planned out all of the changes in the first place? (It didn’t happen overnight.) Can change never consist of abandoning something new and returning to the old? Were not the forms of worship in the Novus Ordo Missae an attempt to return to earlier and simpler forms of liturgy in the first place?

It is entirely within the realm of possibility, that a future Pope could say something like “we made these changes with the best of intentions, but it didn’t work out the way we hoped, let’s go back to the way things were, and rely upon slow, organic development rather than abrupt changes over the course of seven years”. Not likely, but possible. Did Catholics in the year 1949 even dream that, twenty years later, the faithful would be worshiping in the vernacular, priest facing the people? Communion in the hand and lay eucharistic ministers ten-odd years after that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top