One more try for a civil discussion?

[elts1956]

Bold is mine. I totally agree with all of your post. Here in Hawaii we have very good weather year round and after Saturday vigil Mass we have an hour adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. There are several groups of people remaining in the Church after Mass to just shoot the breeze, loud talk & laughter. I know I never saw any of this in the 40’s, 50’s and most of the 60’s. It is impossible for the wife & I to remain for the adoration.

Maybe the “disrespectful ones” need to be reminded in no uncertain terms what is in that Monstrance on the altar and asked to clear out. It would have happened in the good old days or the 40s, 50s and 60s, wouldn’t it? Why are our priests so afraid to say something to people like this? I don’t understand.

 

[reggieM]

That just isn’t true (the last part). Latin was to be the normative liturgical language according to the council. I doubt I’ll have time tonight to look up the references; maybe somebody else will, or I will tomorrow.

Vernacular was permitted by the Council in a document signed by Archbishop Lefevbre. The 1962 Missal was intended to be reformed – not preserved.

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

1. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

You’re referrring to this passage:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

 

[Joe_5859]

Yay for civil discourse! :clapping:

Seriously, though, good job on the thread so far. I think you’re coming at this from the right angle and I hope the discussion continues in that vein (and I hope my post does not detract from that noble goal!).

Before I add some of my observations, first I’ll give a bit of background on where I’m coming from. I always thought I was a “traditional Catholic.” I love the Church and I strive to live up to Her teachings as best I can. I firmly believe in all that the Church teaches. I love our pope (both the current pope and the previous one…and, well, all the 20th century popes were pretty extraordinary).

I love the liturgy and the sacraments. I have never had the opportunity to attend an EF Mass, but I would like to. I still love the OF Mass and can’t wait for the new translation. It saddens me (and often irks me) to see deviations from the rubrics (wrong kind of candles, priest not wearing all the proper vestments, omitting the introit, singing “bread of life”/“Prince of peace” instead of “Lamb of God”, etc.)

I love and prefer the beautiful theology behind the ad orientam posture of the priest and behind many of the traditional things (Communion on the tongue, bells, incense, beautiful churches with the tabernacle in the center, chant, etc.). I love the Second Vatican Council, though I do think that it wasn’t implemented as well as it could have been, and many people within the Church unfortunately seized it as an opportunity to push their own agenda.

However, even though I have these preferences, it bothers me to see others chastised for doing things or preferring things that are currently permitted. Perhaps things like Communion in the hand or altar girls started out as abuses that were later made acceptable, but they are still acceptable at the present time. And while my preference may be different, I have a hard time being too critical of people that are doing what the Church allows. You see in the Old Testament all the time: God will make concessions in the law to help bring His people closer to Him. I have no problem if the Church does the same thing as I know the Church never concedes in the matters that are essential.

I haven’t been around this forum as long as many others, but from my experience, there seems to be a lot of talking past each other. I don’t think it’s accurate to group us into two groups: trads and anti-trads. I haven’t encountered anyone here that is really anti all things traditional. Even posters who seem to get a bit, er, enthusiastic aren’t really anti-trad. I think they just get frustrated at what they perceive to be attacks on legitimate Catholic practices, or on the OF and they retalliate in kind. Perhaps it is not the best way to make their point, but I don’t think they are anti-trad because of it.

I wonder if much of it has to do with our experience. For someone like me who has been blessed to live in areas with solid priests, it’s hard for me to even imagine living in a place where every Catholic parish in a 50 mile radius would have priests openly teaching heresy in their homilies. Even the “liberal” priests in my diocese wouldn’t dream of doing that! So I think it’s easier for someone like me to focus on all the positive things going on in the Church. Likewise, it’s easier for me to think that some people here are over-exaggerating the problems they see.

I can only imagine, though, that if I lived somewhere else that fits the description of many of the posters here, I couldn’t help but feel as though I was living through a historical period similar to that of Arianism. In such places, it certainly makes sense that places that offer the EF Mass would be safe havens for those who wish to follow the teachings of the Church. I would probably also be much more quick to go on the defensive as I would have much more experience trying to defend Catholic tradition from those who wish to discard it.

I really love the line in the foreword of Pope Benedict XVI’s book “Jesus of Nazareth.” Right after he says that the book is not an enterprise of the Magisterium and people are free to disagree with him, he says this:

“I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.”

• Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p. xxiv.

I have found these words to be full of truth. I cannot hope to understand those I may disagree with if I do not first approach them in a spirit of goodwill and presume goodwill on their part. Of course, it may be the case that they do not have goodwill, but that should not be my first assumption. When I approach people’s posts from this vantage point, I have found that I am far less likely to misread their post or think that they said something that they really never meant to say (of course, it still happens as I have not yet perfected the art of faithfully following my own advice ).

Anyway, that’s my two cents.

 

[elts1956]

Your point is taken, but certainly there is an exception to every rule.

The rubrics of TLM do have a leg up from the get-go in that their specificity does nearly ‘insure’ reverence - perhaps even ‘coerce’ it (if need be).

One need only watch an EWTN mass, IMO, to see a reverent NO. Or the pope.

I think it would be very easy to present a case, however, that there were far more properly reverent masses before the introduction of the NO. I think most (including probably you) would agree with that.

I was a young thing in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I won’t comment on now, but picking words apart and thinking about their meaning is sometimes an exercise for my brain. “Reverence” more reverent back in that time, or more disciplined? Am trying to think back to my experiences during Mass then. Yes, there was an atmosphere of reverence which from my perspective has been minimized in appearance now. ie. people talking and having gab fests in church after Mass. People coming in willy nilly and leaving will nilly whether Mass is over or not. But is it reverence, discipline, or awareness these folks are not practicing?

Society’s whole outlook on what is to be respected and reverenced has been turned upside down. I don’t think the introduction of the NO is the source of disrupture. One can be as reverant at the NO as at a TLM if one understands WHY one is at Mass, and WHO they are visiting. I think I would blame lack of reverence at Mass on the wishy washy Religious and Societal education people experience these days. If they experience any at all. After all, what can you hold as an absolute if no one is taught absolutes exist?

But then, I cannot judge another’s idea of what they believe is a display of reverance, nor their understanding of it. But when two or more gather and appear to be unconscious they are still in God’s house after Mass is over, then I begin to wonder…

 

[jeff417]

I attended a schismatic TLM parish for the last 15 years and recently reverted to the true Catholic faith. I enjoy the OF immensely and my children love it. I do cringe at some of the changes which I don’t yet understand. Though I won’t go into specifics here, there are places in the OF which seem to change the words of Christ as it is printed in my Bible. Most of these issues, however, have been beaten to death in other threads. Anyway, it is nice to have a civil thread with which to share my thoughts and hear all of yours! Keep it up!!

 

[Joe_5859]

I attended a schismatic TLM parish for the last 15 years and recently reverted to the true Catholic faith. I enjoy the OF immensely and my children love it. I do cringe at some of the changes which I don’t yet understand. Though I won’t go into specifics here, there are places in the OF which seem to change the words of Christ as it is printed in my Bible. Most of these issues, however, have been beaten to death in other threads. Anyway, it is nice to have a civil thread with which to share my thoughts and hear all of yours! Keep it up!!

And hopefully most of these will be corrected when the new liturgical translation goes into effect in 3 or 4 years from now.

 

[ethelzguy]

And hopefully most of these will be corrected when the new liturgical translation goes into effect in 3 or 4 years from now.

As much as I prefer the simplicity of the Mass of Paul VI, I will admit that it is easier to discuss the Mass with non-Catholics when the prayers are more directly taken from scripture.

For example, “Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof” is pulled directly from scripture…while “Lord I am not worthy to recieve you”…to me, actually makes more sense, as I am about to receive the Eucharist in a Church, as opposed to in my home…

But, when you can flip open a protestant Bible, and SHOW them the exact words, it’s harder for them to debunk.

 

[Joe_5859]

As much as I prefer the simplicity of the Mass of Paul VI, I will admit that it is easier to discuss the Mass with non-Catholics when the prayers are more directly taken from scripture.

For example, “Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof” is pulled directly from scripture…while “Lord I am not worthy to recieve you”…to me, actually makes more sense, as I am about to receive the Eucharist in a Church, as opposed to in my home…

But, when you can flip open a protestant Bible, and SHOW them the exact words, it’s harder for them to debunk.

Good point. Of course, the normative Latin text of the OF does pull directly from Scripture. It’s the current English translation that tweaked the words to be something a little different.

I really like Fr. Stravinskas’ book The Catholic Church and the Bible. One chapter goes through the prayers of the Mass virtually line by line and shows you were it is in Scripture. Very useful for dispelling the myth that the Mass is not biblical.

 

[Wolseley]

If Vatican II had occurred twenty years earlier I think the implementation would not have been so extreme. When the windows were flung open to let in fresh air, the air that was outside wasn’t really that fresh.

Very, very profound, and explains it in a nutshell. May I have your permission to use this, perhaps slightly modified, as a signature file?

In days gone by, it was the habit to leave the church building as soon as Mass was over, or if one wanted to quietly stay a while, they could. This past Sunday after Mass, I was amazed at how many people were standing in the Church having social gatherings as though Christ wasn’t present at all behind their backs. Sad departure from what used to be. These days, there is such a lack of awareness of where we are and why we are there when we attend Mass.

This is one of my most major pet peeves. People are standing in the presence of God Almighty Himself, and instead of showing Him respect and holy fear, they jabber on like a tribe of chimpanzees about the latest episode of Desperate Housewives or Survivor, and the inside of the nave of the church sounds like a union meeting hall.

If I could have the “perfect” Mass, I guess it would be a syncretism of the Tridentine liturgy and the Novus Ordo minus the abuses and trendy encrustations that have accumulated to it, like barnacles. I can envision something perhaps like the so-called “Missal of 1965”, which was basically the EF in the vernacular; but add to it the greater scope of readings found in the OF; and of course, the silence and reverence found in the EF would be mandatory. Then do away with any and all abuses—stick to the rubrics, and get rid of rock bands and those godawful post-Vatican II “hymns” and go back to music written before 1965, and you’d just about have a perfect Mass, IMHO.

I suspect that most Trads wouldn’t have such a probem with the OF if it wasn’t such an irreverent, abuse-laden dog-and-pony show. I mean, you look at an EF High Mass as compared to a “Life Teen Mass” and there is no contest.

 

[ethelzguy]

I suspect that most Trads wouldn’t have such a probem with the OF if it wasn’t such an irreverent, abuse-laden dog-and-pony show. I mean, you look at an EF High Mass as compared to a “Life Teen Mass” and there is no contest.

I think you sell LifeTeen a little short, at least in our parish. Our LifeTeen is probably the most reverent of our Masses, even if the music is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

But that’s another thread.

 

[Wolseley]

Our LifeTeen is probably the most reverent of our Masses, even if the music is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

Heavens…the thoughts of what the others must be like gives me profound pause.

 

[ethelzguy]

I mean, you look at an EF High Mass as compared to a “Life Teen Mass” and there is no contest.

Down that same vein, last night I was watching a video on steam locomotives from the 40-50’s. It reminded me of the Latin Mass debate.

Back then, steam ruled the day. It was a given. People forget how dirty and nasty they really were. I can’t count the times my mother or grandmother would get angry if a train passed by while they had laundry outside to dry on the line…or how much soot you got on your clothes if you rode the train somewhere with the windows open. But they did hold a majesty that today’s diesels can’t touch.

Nowadays, people flock from miles around to ride a steam excursion. They wax expansive as to how wonderful and majestic they are or were. Most of those people aren’t old enough to remember when they were commonplace, or have selective memory.

I think the same could be applied to the TLM. What you see and experience these days when you attend one is likely far different than what you experienced way back when…when they were commonplace, and priest rattled thru them at warp speed, taking it all for granted.

I haven’t been to one since Vatican II, but I attended over 3,000 of them before V2. But from what I read here and elsewhere, there is a good bit of difference. The ones being done now, are decked out to the nines, and are hardly taken for granted.

 

[ethelzguy]

Heavens…the thoughts of what the others must be like gives me profound pause.

No, I think you misunderstood. Our pastor is very traditional. About half a dozen prayers at all the Masses are said in Latin, with translation cards in the pews. Two weeks ago, we had a visiting priest. He did not say any prayers in Latin. People instinctively reached for the translation cards, only to discover that this priest wasn’t doing any Latin.

What I am saying, is (music notwithstanding) that our LifeTeen is incredibly reverent. Watching the teens at Mass is truly inspiring.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think you sell LifeTeen a little short, at least in our parish. Our LifeTeen is probably the most reverent of our Masses, even if the music is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

But that’s another thread.

Heavens…the thoughts of what the others must be like gives me profound pause.

I think these two posts illustrate the problems that often arise in trying to discuss these things (not to pick on you two or say that you are doing anything wrong, just trying to illustrate a point). I think that it can often be easy for us to generalize and characterize groups of people as all being the same across the board in light of our experience.

Groups like Life Teen, and the Life Teen Masses are not necessarily the same all across the board. For some reason (perhaps not completely without merit) “Life Teen Mass” tends to become equated with everything that’s wrong with the way Mass is celebrated. That’s not necessarily the case. It would not be my first choice of Masses to go to either, but I would hesitate to generalize that all Life Teen Masses are irreverent and abuse-ridden.

Not to open another can of worms, but something similar tends to happen in regards to the Charismatic movement. If our experience of “charismatics” is that they are emotion-driven, hand-wavers who care little for doctrine and nothing for tradition but only for emotional experience, then it becomes easy for us to assume that there is something inherent in the movement itself that makes all “charismatics” behave this way.

On the other side, the same can happen in regards to self-identified “traditionalists”. Some people’s experience of traditionalists is that they are borderline-sedevacantists, OF-denigrating, holier-than-thou, sterile and lifeless people who care more for following rules than for fostering a loving relationship with Jesus. It would certainly be grossly unfair to characterize all traditionalists as fitting this description.

I think it’s human nature (at least it’s in my nature) to want to put things in neat, tidy categories, but the reality is not always that clear cut. In our dialogue, this can manifest itself in us assuming that we know exactly what the other person is like by virtue of our experience with other people who say similar things. This can lead us down the wrong road very quickly.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Vernacular was permitted by the Council in a document signed by Archbishop Lefevbre. The 1962 Missal was intended to be reformed – not preserved.

You’re referrring to this passage:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

Indirectly, perhaps.

Is this document:

latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

“In the Constitution on the Liturgy you will see that there is nothing in it which even hints at such novelties as Mass facing the people, or a vernacular Mass, or Communion in the hand, or extraordinary ministers of Communion.”

completely mistaken?

How about on the topic of the priest putting his back to the tabernacle?

Quotes of Paul VI towards the end or after the council apparently made it clear he expected the norm to be Latin and the traditional posture.

I do not have my Michael Davies booklets handy and am short on time. (Actually - I don’t own those booklets; they were borrowed and are out of print.)

How about the smashing of the altars that went on “in compliance” of the council - when it had never indirectly or directly proposed or mandated any such thing? (I’m bringing this up only to make the general point that the “implementation” of the council was - way off. Not too many deny that now.)

It’s possible I’m wrong about the vernacular. I’m open to that possibility. I don’t think it changes a great deal. A lot of fishiness when on at that council - the liberal contingent came with the notion of building a protestant-looking Mass and that is what we got in the end. It is not a coincidence that the new Catholic Mass happened to look (externally) like a Protestant service. This was not a reform, but a cleaning of the slate and starting over.

The thread on the “Mass of Paul VI” going right now has some good information. I would also recommend the book “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber” if you’re not familiar.

Mind you, the Mass is still a valid Mass and I still love it. I find the old liturgy superior for the reasons I’ve outlined in the first post (and some more). I don’t like the type of dealings that went on in the council. I don’t think the notion to change anything, one single thing in our liturgy to suit Protestants was a holy thing with holy motivation. The Church has always enticed those outside her to join us by virtue of her intrinsic beauty, not by changing to suit the world.

I could go on and on but will begin to get redundant with the other thread in progress, etc. And I have a feeling you’ve heard it before anyway.

 

[elts1956]

Very, very profound, and explains it in a nutshell. May I have your permission to use this, perhaps slightly modified, as a signature file?

This is one of my most major pet peeves. People are standing in the presence of God Almighty Himself, and instead of showing Him respect and holy fear, they jabber on like a tribe of chimpanzees about the latest episode of Desperate Housewives or Survivor, and the inside of the nave of the church sounds like a union meeting hall.

If I could have the “perfect” Mass, I guess it would be a syncretism of the Tridentine liturgy and the Novus Ordo minus the abuses and trendy encrustations that have accumulated to it, like barnacles. I can envision something perhaps like the so-called “Missal of 1965”, which was basically the EF in the vernacular; but add to it the greater scope of readings found in the OF; and of course, the silence and reverence found in the EF would be mandatory. Then do away with any and all abuses—stick to the rubrics, and get rid of rock bands and those godawful post-Vatican II “hymns” and go back to music written before 1965, and you’d just about have a perfect Mass, IMHO.

I suspect that most Trads wouldn’t have such a probem with the OF if it wasn’t such an irreverent, abuse-laden dog-and-pony show. I mean, you look at an EF High Mass as compared to a “Life Teen Mass” and there is no contest.

Well, I attend an NO Mass and it has never been a dog and pony show. I too would be offended if there werre dogs, ponies, clowns, actors etc. at the Mass I attend. Fortunately, from what I have read about other NO masses on these forums, the Mass I attend is one of the more reverant ones.

 

[reggieM]

Indirectly, perhaps.

Is this document:

latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

“In the Constitution on the Liturgy you will see that there is nothing in it which even hints at such novelties as Mass facing the people, or a vernacular Mass, or Communion in the hand, or extraordinary ministers of Communion.”

completely mistaken?

I wouldn’t call that a “document” in the sense that it’s an essay by an untrained layman. But yes, it’s completely mistaken as I showed from direct quotes from the Vatican II document on the Liturgy. A “vernacular Mass” was more than “hinted” at. It was fully permitted and expected. My point here is that your statement that the “old Mass” was to be preserved by Vatican II is not quite right. The 1962 Missal does not permit vernacular. Vatican II authorized vernacular.

How about on the topic of the priest putting his back to the tabernacle?

That’s a different topic. There’s nothing in Vatican II that would forbid Mass being celebrated facing the people. Thus again, Vatican II did not preserve the 1962 Missal on this point (although it can be argued that the 1962 Missal can be celebrated facing the people as it was at St. Peter’s in Rome). But there was also nothing mandating Mass facing the people so it was an abuse of the Vatican II document to force that on the Catholic people where it happened.

Quotes of Paul VI towards the end or after the council apparently made it clear he expected the norm to be Latin and the traditional posture.

I haven’t seen those quotes, but that could be true. At the same time, Pope Paul VI authorized the vernacular Mass and he celebrated it himself.

I do not have my Michael Davies booklets handy and am short on time. (Actually - I don’t own those booklets; they were borrowed and are out of print.)

Mr. Davies, God rest him, was a wonderful layman but he offered a lot of rhetoric which was inaccurate. Many so-called traditionalists have believed what he said and they quote him as if he offered official liturgical texts and interpretations. He was fighting to get a place for the 1962 Missal. He did a great job, but he didn’t give a full, objective view of the liturgy.

Again, the Vatican II document on the liturgy, signed by Archbishop Lefevbre, called for a reform of the 1962 Missal. That’s the main point.

How about the smashing of the altars that went on “in compliance” of the council - when it had never indirectly or directly proposed or mandated any such thing? (I’m bringing this up only to make the general point that the “implementation” of the council was - way off. Not too many deny that now.)

Ok, but again this is a different point that you’re raising.

I would also recommend the book “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber” if you’re not familiar.

I was familiar with it 27 years ago when the traditionalist press claimed that it exposed the errors of the Council. But a careful reading of that book will show that Vatican II was not one big conspiracy by liberals. Additionally, it’s important to study Vatican II from objective sources and try to understand why the liturgical document got almost unanimous support.

I don’t think the notion to change anything, one single thing in our liturgy to suit Protestants was a holy thing with holy motivation.

You’re free to hold that opinion, but I would suggest that it’s not a good idea to arrive at conclusions about the motivation of the Catholic bishops without really understanding their view.

It might be difficult for us to admit it, but the Protestants – for all of their serious and grevious errors – actually had (and have) some good ideas and they were correct about a few things that Catholics had forgotten over the centuries. It’s a mistake to think that every criticism that Protestants have of the Catholic Church is automatically false just because they’re heretics. There was a need for some reforms in the Church in the 16th century. We shouldn’t pretend that the Church was perfect in its external, human form. If the Protestants had offered their correct reforms and had not broken from the Faith, they would have been doing a good thing. But as we know, they went beyond reasonable reforms and fell into heresy.

The liturgical document of Vatican II was driven very much by Eastern Catholics as well. So it wasn’t just an interest in appeasing Protestants.

The Church has always enticed those outside her to join us by virtue of her intrinsic beauty, not by changing to suit the world.

From the beginning, the Church adopted pagan symbols and absorbed pagan practices in order to win over those outside of the Faith (and because some pagan things were good in themselves).

I could go on and on but will begin to get redundant with the other thread in progress, etc. And I have a feeling you’ve heard it before anyway.

Yes, I have. But I appreciate your replies and I do agree with you for the most part.

 

[eelpis]

Let’s face it, the OF was made to placate eventual converts from Protestantism ( Anglicans, Lutherans etc.) Paul VI made that clear to his friend Jean Guitton.

IMO it’s been a failure, converts from Protestantism were more numerous before the reform. Besides, look and see for yourself, where have the grand schemes from the 60’s gone regarding reunification with the Lutherans and the Anglicans? Those Protestant denominations have gone the way of the world, endorsing homosexuality and feminism galore. There will be no reunification. Even so, the OF brought us further from the “Orthodox” who share our values and who also keep to their traditions and who are liturgical Christians.

 

[reggieM]

Let’s face it, the OF was made to placate eventual converts from Protestantism ( Anglicans, Lutherans etc.) Paul VI made that clear to his friend Jean Guitton.

You seem to think that Anglicans are not “liturgical Christians”.

I don’t know what you’d call this, but I’d call it a proof that high liturgy alone does not create orthodox Catholics.

(High Mass in Anglican Diocese of the UK).

IMO it’s been a failure, converts from Protestantism were more numerous before the reform.

I’d like to see some numbers on that. Take a look at the apologetical literature prior to the Council versus that which is available today. Beyond that, “before the reform” stretches back to the creation of the Protestant heresy/schism itself. Many Eastern Orthodox will argue that the unreformed Tridentine Liturgy was a cause of the Protestant split.

Besides, look and see for yourself, where have the grand schemes from the 60’s gone regarding reunification with the Lutherans and the Anglicans?

I look for myself and see entire congregations of Anglicans who are hoping to reconcile with the Church. This is unprecedented.

Even so, the OF brought us further from the “Orthodox” who share our values and who also keep to their traditions and who are liturgical Christians.

Several aspects of the OF were introduced to bring the Roman Rite closer to the Orthodox liturgy.

 

[eelpis]

You seem to think that Anglicans are not “liturgical Christians”.

I don’t know what you’d call this, but I’d call it a proof that high liturgy alone does not create orthodox Catholics.

(High Mass in Anglican Diocese of the UK).

Anglican Catholic Church
"

I’d like to see some numbers on that. Take a look at the apologetical literature prior to the Council versus that which is available today. Beyond that, “before the reform” stretches back to the creation of the Protestant heresy/schism itself. Many Eastern Orthodox will argue that the unreformed Tridentine Liturgy was a cause of the Protestant split.

I look for myself and see entire congregations of Anglicans who are hoping to reconcile with the Church. This is unprecendented.

Several aspects of the OF were introduced to bring the Roman Rite closer to the Orthodox liturgy.

“I don’t know what you’d call this, but I’d call it a proof that high liturgy alone does not create orthodox Catholics.” Agreed. There are several reasons for not accepting the truth, all of them emanating from our common fallen nature.

I’m quite aware of the trads in Anglicanism and even Lutheranism who are looking to Rome, but the greater part of them are going the way of the world. After the decision of the Anglicans in the last Lambeth conference even Card. Kasper has almost given up on them.

In the country where I come from conversions were more numerous before V II and the reforms, part of because I know the bishops made it clear to protestants that it was better to stay with their denom than convert ( they hoped to reconcile the lot of them) I don’t want to be in those bishop’s shoes come judgement day.
The Orthodox are rather pleased with Summorum Pontificum, the Patriarch of Moscow said that what kept the Orthodox from falling during the Communist persecutions was their keeping to their traditions.

BTW: The writing on those murals are in Latin not in English.