Traditional Practices

[anruari]

I Live in England. I moved there from Ireland.

I am in no way a “Traditionalist” or one who believes that Vatican 2 took anything away from the Faith… However I do feel saddened when I look at how much the “baby has been thrown out with the bath water” in introducing peoples mistaken interpretations of V.C.2

I have in previous years served as an E.M.H.C. I now normally will go out of my way to receive from a priest if I can do so without causing a problem. (when receiving under both species I try to ensure that I receive at least one species from a Priest).

My normal parish uses an altar rail, and most communicants Kneel. There is a sign on the door saying “No communion on the Toungue”
There is one priest. There are no EMHC’s

Once a month the choir leads the people responses in Latin for the main 11am Sunday Mass. That same mass they also use some level of Gregorian Chant for the responses.

This experience has really opened my eyes to the beauty of these older practices

I have recently started praying the LOTH, and become more aware of the GILOTH, and thereby the GIRM.
I have read a number of encyclicals such as Redemptionis Sacramentum and others.

I feel so sad that the guidance in these documents seems to be so often ignored.
Why when every document I can find recommends that Gregorian Chant should retain Pride of place, and that the Mass and other Liturgies should be “Sung whenever possible” is it that I cannot remember more that one or 2 occasions when I have attended a mass where the priest has sung the majority of the mass?

I acknowledge that it is no longer easy as most priests are totally out of practice.

I occasionally have stuck my head into my parish church when an Eastern Rite community are having their monthly mass there. The priest has his back to the congregation, and is chanting in a language I cannot recognise (they are an Indian group, I’m not sure which eastern rite they belong to, but I assume it is one which is in Communion with Rome)
There is incense being used
It all seems so beautiful and reverent.

Why is it that we cant have - at least on a deanery level - at least one mass where the GIRM reccomendations are followed properly - i.e. a sung mass in Gregorian Chant with all the bells and whistles.
I suspect that if this were done more often fewer people would feel that they have to go all the way back to the Pre-Vatican 2 rites to experience this level of reverence in the Mass.

Am I just looking to have my cake and eat it?

 

[OraLabora]

No, you hit the nail on the head. If the true spirit of Vatican II were to be followed, then we would have more Gregorian chant, either from the Graduale Romanum for those places that can handle it, or the Graduale Simplex in parishes, and sung vernacular propers where Gregorian chant wasn’t used, or traditional hymns of long cultural significance for the area; we’d still hear some Latin, at least for the Ordinary of the Mass; we’d have priests that follow the rubrics; we’d still use incense and bells on Sunday; we would make proper use of sacramental confession; the church building would be silent 1/2 hr before Mass, the only noise being the faithful shuffling quietly to their pews to pray before Mass; and there would be few EMHC, except maybe to help bring communion to shut-ins or assist a parish where the priest was elderly or the congregation huge.

And we’d hear very little demand for the EF of the Mass. Instead we get the “spirit of Vatican II” as interpreted by people with an agenda. And we all know the mess that this caused.

I’m lucky that I can find an OF Mass that is all in Gregorian chant, within an easy drive from home; where the Propers and Ordinary from the Graduale Romanum are chanted daily, in Latin and Greek, and where the rest of the Mass is chanted in French plainchant; the entire Mass is chanted, even the readings and Gospel proclamation. The only exception is the Prayers of the Faithful on weekdays.

We did, indeed, throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[FatHead]

No, you hit the nail on the head. If the true spirit of Vatican II were to be followed, then we would have more Gregorian chant, either from the Graduale Romanum for those places that can handle it, or the Graduale Simplex in parishes, and sung vernacular propers where Gregorian chant wasn’t used, or traditional hymns of long cultural significance for the area; we’d still hear some Latin, at least for the Ordinary of the Mass; we’d have priests that follow the rubrics; we’d still use incense and bells on Sunday; we would make proper use of sacramental confession; the church building would be silent 1/2 hr before Mass, the only noise being the faithful shuffling quietly to their pews to pray before Mass; and there would be few EMHC, except maybe to help bring communion to shut-ins or assist a parish where the priest was elderly or the congregation huge.

And we’d hear very little demand for the EF of the Mass. Instead we get the “spirit of Vatican II” as interpreted by people with an agenda. And we all know the mess that this caused.

I’m lucky that I can find an OF Mass that is all in Gregorian chant, within an easy drive from home; where the Propers and Ordinary from the Graduale Romanum are chanted daily, in Latin and Greek, and where the rest of the Mass is chanted in French plainchant; the entire Mass is chanted, even the readings and Gospel proclamation. The only exception is the Prayers of the Faithful on weekdays.

We did, indeed, throw out the baby with the bathwater.

very true. If only more people understood the true spirit of VII

 

[promethius]

I Live in England. I moved there from Ireland.

I am in no way a “Traditionalist” or one who believes that Vatican 2 took anything away from the Faith… However I do feel saddened when I look at how much the “baby has been thrown out with the bath water” in introducing peoples mistaken interpretations of V.C.2

I have in previous years served as an E.M.H.C. I now normally will go out of my way to receive from a priest if I can do so without causing a problem. (when receiving under both species I try to ensure that I receive at least one species from a Priest).

My normal parish uses an altar rail, and most communicants Kneel. There is a sign on the door saying “No communion on the Toungue”
There is one priest. There are no EMHC’s

Once a month the choir leads the people responses in Latin for the main 11am Sunday Mass. That same mass they also use some level of Gregorian Chant for the responses.

This experience has really opened my eyes to the beauty of these older practices

I have recently started praying the LOTH, and become more aware of the GILOTH, and thereby the GIRM.
I have read a number of encyclicals such as Redemptionis Sacramentum and others.

I feel so sad that the guidance in these documents seems to be so often ignored.
Why when every document I can find recommends that Gregorian Chant should retain Pride of place, and that the Mass and other Liturgies should be “Sung whenever possible” is it that I cannot remember more that one or 2 occasions when I have attended a mass where the priest has sung the majority of the mass?

I acknowledge that it is no longer easy as most priests are totally out of practice.

I occasionally have stuck my head into my parish church when an Eastern Rite community are having their monthly mass there. The priest has his back to the congregation, and is chanting in a language I cannot recognise (they are an Indian group, I’m not sure which eastern rite they belong to, but I assume it is one which is in Communion with Rome)
There is incense being used
It all seems so beautiful and reverent.

Why is it that we cant have - at least on a deanery level - at least one mass where the GIRM reccomendations are followed properly - i.e. a sung mass in Gregorian Chant with all the bells and whistles.
I suspect that if this were done more often fewer people would feel that they have to go all the way back to the Pre-Vatican 2 rites to experience this level of reverence in the Mass.

Am I just looking to have my cake and eat it?

Actually, I’m going to go and point out that I blame the “traditionalists” and especially the sedevacantists for all the things they currently complain about in the OF masses.

Essentially, it boils down to this: the idea of a universal church makes sense in that it provides the same structure as a dance. If I lead in a dance, I expect a follow to provide some level of feedback via what we call dynamic tension… basically, that way we both balance off of each other and no one ends up falling the wrong direction.

Vatican II came out, along with the Novus Ordo, and all of a sudden a bunch of priests decided that rather than get on board with the changes, they’d rather abandon the priesthood (ugh!), and a large portion of the church sequestered (and still do) themselves into the EF mass. Of course, we can’t forget the sedevacantists who abandoned the church altogether. What this did was it essentially ripped out any sort of dynamic social tension from the body of the church (in regards to the forms of the mass). The “liberal” minded with regard to the liturgy were still pulling in their direction, but without the counterbalancing presense of the “conservative minded”, who were now refusing to participate in the Novus Ordo, the liberal minded were able to pull entire pracitices farther than Vatican II had ever authorized or envisioned… precisely because the people who were SUPPOSED to be there to pull back (dynamic tension) had abandoned their duty.

Which is precisely my problem with the people who ONLY go to EF and then complain incessantly about the “failures” of the OF. It’s not that the OF has “failures” in and of itself, it’s that those of us who are committed to the best OF possible are few and far between, having been abandoned by those who insist on ONLY attending the EF. Like I said, I blame them for not taking a part in defending the liturgy and then bashing what happened as a result.

(right, now I think I’ve managed to start a forest fire)

 

[OraLabora]

There’s some merit to what you say. It’s a bit analogous to the foundation of Protestantism even. There were some abuses in the Church, and rather than work from within to reform and get rid of the abuses, the Protestants threw out the baby with the bathwater and went out and founded their own denominations.

I don’t seek out the EF. I seek out reverently-done OF Masses, and I participate in the process of “reforming” the OF (actually: restoring it what it was intended to be) by singing in a Gregorian schola that attempts to bring Gregorian chant to local parishes once a month.

I do worry that having two distinct forms of the Mass is divisive. There are merits to both forms, in particular the extended lectionary of the OF (OT, gospel of St. Mark) and the greater lay involvement in the Mass itself (I don’t mean abuse of EMHC, but rather more dialogue between the priest and the faithful, participation in the music and responses, etc.). I wish the Church would cease on this somewhat schizophrenic situation and have ONE form of the Mass, with the best elements from both, and then put its foot down on liturgical abuses.

 

[TrueLight]

Actually, I’m going to go and point out that I blame the “traditionalists” and especially the sedevacantists for all the things they currently complain about in the OF masses.

Essentially, it boils down to this: the idea of a universal church makes sense in that it provides the same structure as a dance. If I lead in a dance, I expect a follow to provide some level of feedback via what we call dynamic tension… basically, that way we both balance off of each other and no one ends up falling the wrong direction.

Vatican II came out, along with the Novus Ordo, and all of a sudden a bunch of priests decided that rather than get on board with the changes, they’d rather abandon the priesthood (ugh!), and a large portion of the church sequestered (and still do) themselves into the EF mass. Of course, we can’t forget the sedevacantists who abandoned the church altogether. What this did was it essentially ripped out any sort of dynamic social tension from the body of the church (in regards to the forms of the mass). The “liberal” minded with regard to the liturgy were still pulling in their direction, but without the counterbalancing presense of the “conservative minded”, who were now refusing to participate in the Novus Ordo, the liberal minded were able to pull entire pracitices farther than Vatican II had ever authorized or envisioned… precisely because the people who were SUPPOSED to be there to pull back (dynamic tension) had abandoned their duty.

Which is precisely my problem with the people who ONLY go to EF and then complain incessantly about the “failures” of the OF. It’s not that the OF has “failures” in and of itself, it’s that those of us who are committed to the best OF possible are few and far between, having been abandoned by those who insist on ONLY attending the EF. Like I said, I blame them for not taking a part in defending the liturgy and then bashing what happened as a result.

(right, now I think I’ve managed to start a forest fire)

Very interesting!

 

[asd72]

Excuse my ignorance but is a sung Mass Gregorian chant or is that something different. The Priest at last Sundays Mass sung throughout, and we sung the responses.

 

[asia53]

Actually, I’m going to go and point out that I blame the “traditionalists” and especially the sedevacantists for all the things they currently complain about in the OF masses.

Essentially, it boils down to this: the idea of a universal church makes sense in that it provides the same structure as a dance. If I lead in a dance, I expect a follow to provide some level of feedback via what we call dynamic tension… basically, that way we both balance off of each other and no one ends up falling the wrong direction.

Vatican II came out, along with the Novus Ordo, and all of a sudden a bunch of priests decided that rather than get on board with the changes, they’d rather abandon the priesthood (ugh!), and a large portion of the church sequestered (and still do) themselves into the EF mass. Of course, we can’t forget the sedevacantists who abandoned the church altogether. What this did was it essentially ripped out any sort of dynamic social tension from the body of the church (in regards to the forms of the mass). The “liberal” minded with regard to the liturgy were still pulling in their direction, but without the counterbalancing presense of the “conservative minded”, who were now refusing to participate in the Novus Ordo, the liberal minded were able to pull entire pracitices farther than Vatican II had ever authorized or envisioned… precisely because the people who were SUPPOSED to be there to pull back (dynamic tension) had abandoned their duty.

Which is precisely my problem with the people who ONLY go to EF and then complain incessantly about the “failures” of the OF. It’s not that the OF has “failures” in and of itself, it’s that those of us who are committed to the best OF possible are few and far between, having been abandoned by those who insist on ONLY attending the EF. Like I said, I blame them for not taking a part in defending the liturgy and then bashing what happened as a result.

(right, now I think I’ve managed to start a forest fire)

Wow, I’ve never thought about it that way, makes sense. Thank you for the food for thought.

P.S. I have marshmallows.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Wow, I’ve never thought about it that way, makes sense. Thank you for the food for thought.

P.S. I have marshmallows.

And I’ll bring the chocolate & the graham crackers, we need lots “s’more” of this kind of insightful thinking.

Thanks Promethius- you are spot on!!

 

[anp1215]

My normal parish uses an altar rail, and most communicants Kneel. There is a sign on the door saying “No communion on the Toungue”
There is one priest. There are no EMHC’s

I just wanted to say that sounds very unusual! In the U.S., it seems as though parishes with altar rails encourage/have more parishioners receiving on the tongue. I don’t really think they should have a sign up like that…I don’t think parishioners should/can be refused COT…I’m not sure how it is in the UK. I’m sure someone can elaborate.

Actually, I’m going to go and point out that I blame the “traditionalists” and especially the sedevacantists for all the things they currently complain about in the OF masses.

Essentially, it boils down to this: the idea of a universal church makes sense in that it provides the same structure as a dance. If I lead in a dance, I expect a follow to provide some level of feedback via what we call dynamic tension… basically, that way we both balance off of each other and no one ends up falling the wrong direction.

Vatican II came out, along with the Novus Ordo, and all of a sudden a bunch of priests decided that rather than get on board with the changes, they’d rather abandon the priesthood (ugh!), and a large portion of the church sequestered (and still do) themselves into the EF mass. Of course, we can’t forget the sedevacantists who abandoned the church altogether. What this did was it essentially ripped out any sort of dynamic social tension from the body of the church (in regards to the forms of the mass). The “liberal” minded with regard to the liturgy were still pulling in their direction, but without the counterbalancing presense of the “conservative minded”, who were now refusing to participate in the Novus Ordo, the liberal minded were able to pull entire pracitices farther than Vatican II had ever authorized or envisioned… precisely because the people who were SUPPOSED to be there to pull back (dynamic tension) had abandoned their duty.

Which is precisely my problem with the people who ONLY go to EF and then complain incessantly about the “failures” of the OF. It’s not that the OF has “failures” in and of itself, it’s that those of us who are committed to the best OF possible are few and far between, having been abandoned by those who insist on ONLY attending the EF. Like I said, I blame them for not taking a part in defending the liturgy and then bashing what happened as a result.

(right, now I think I’ve managed to start a forest fire)

I’ve never thought of it that way, but that makes a lot of sense!

 

[liturgyluver]

I just wanted to say that sounds very unusual! In the U.S., it seems as though parishes with altar rails encourage/have more parishioners receiving on the tongue. I don’t really think they should have a sign up like that…I don’t think parishioners should/can be refused COT…I’m not sure how it is in the UK. I’m sure someone can elaborate.

From my experience in the London area, communion is mainly taken standing, though there are a few places that have retained their altar rails and where kneeling is practiced. Most people seem to receive in the hand, but some on the tongue, and I’ve never heard before a specific ban OTT like the one mentioned (except perhaps when the Swine Flu pandemic began a couple of years ago). Finally, as an aside, there is no commonality in terms of receiving the Chalice. Some places withhold it, others offer it and it differs from church to church as to how many receive. Hope this is helpful.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

I Live in England. I moved there from Ireland.

I am in no way a “Traditionalist” or one who believes that Vatican 2 took anything away from the Faith… However I do feel saddened when I look at how much the “baby has been thrown out with the bath water” in introducing peoples mistaken interpretations of V.C.2

I have in previous years served as an E.M.H.C. I now normally will go out of my way to receive from a priest if I can do so without causing a problem. (when receiving under both species I try to ensure that I receive at least one species from a Priest).

My normal parish uses an altar rail, and most communicants Kneel. There is a sign on the door saying “No communion on the Toungue”
There is one priest. There are no EMHC’s

Once a month the choir leads the people responses in Latin for the main 11am Sunday Mass. That same mass they also use some level of Gregorian Chant for the responses.

This experience has really opened my eyes to the beauty of these older practices

I have recently started praying the LOTH, and become more aware of the GILOTH, and thereby the GIRM.
I have read a number of encyclicals such as Redemptionis Sacramentum and others.

I feel so sad that the guidance in these documents seems to be so often ignored.
Why when every document I can find recommends that Gregorian Chant should retain Pride of place, and that the Mass and other Liturgies should be “Sung whenever possible” is it that I cannot remember more that one or 2 occasions when I have attended a mass where the priest has sung the majority of the mass?

I acknowledge that it is no longer easy as most priests are totally out of practice.

I occasionally have stuck my head into my parish church when an Eastern Rite community are having their monthly mass there. The priest has his back to the congregation, and is chanting in a language I cannot recognise (they are an Indian group, I’m not sure which eastern rite they belong to, but I assume it is one which is in Communion with Rome)
There is incense being used
It all seems so beautiful and reverent.

Why is it that we cant have - at least on a deanery level - at least one mass where the GIRM reccomendations are followed properly - i.e. a sung mass in Gregorian Chant with all the bells and whistles.
I suspect that if this were done more often fewer people would feel that they have to go all the way back to the Pre-Vatican 2 rites to experience this level of reverence in the Mass.

Am I just looking to have my cake and eat it?

---

I can’t comprehend why yo ur pastor posted a sign COmmunioon on the tongue; in essence, this is wrong. You have a choice of receiving in in the hand or the mouth.
You will find parishes that do their own thing without the bbishop.

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU

jr

 

[promethius]

Here I was cringing that I was going to get punched in the face repeatedly over that one… thanks you guys, hopefully a lot of us (liberal, orthodox, and middle road) will get thinking and we can all work together for the best liturgy possible, both EF and OF!

We are, after all, called to be one body!

 

[anp1215]

From my experience in the London area, communion is mainly taken standing, though there are a few places that have retained their altar rails and where kneeling is practiced. Most people seem to receive in the hand, but some on the tongue, and I’ve never heard before a specific ban OTT like the one mentioned (except perhaps when the Swine Flu pandemic began a couple of years ago). Finally, as an aside, there is no commonality in terms of receiving the Chalice. Some places withhold it, others offer it and it differs from church to church as to how many receive. Hope this is helpful.

Thank you for the info. Really that sounds just like the U.S.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Here I was cringing that I was going to get punched in the face repeatedly over that one… thanks you guys, hopefully a lot of us (liberal, orthodox, and middle road) will get thinking and we can all work together for the best liturgy possible, both EF and OF!

We are, after all, called to be one body!

From your mouth to God’s ears!!!

 

[joeantony]

“I occasionally have stuck my head into my parish church when an Eastern Rite community are having their monthly mass there. The priest has his back to the congregation, and is chanting in a language I cannot recognise (they are an Indian group, I’m not sure which eastern rite they belong to, but I assume it is one which is in Communion with Rome)
There is incense being used
It all seems so beautiful and reverent.”

It looks like you barged into a Syro Malankara Catholic church or Syro Malabar Catholic Church. If the priest was not facing the people , it will most likely be Syro Malakara Catholic Church. They are one of the Eastern rite from kerala, India, of course in full communion with Rome.

Joe

 

[FatHead]

My normal parish uses an altar rail, and most communicants Kneel. There is a sign on the door saying “No communion on the Toungue”

typo?

 

[At_Trent]

I Live in England. I moved there from Ireland.

I am in no way a “Traditionalist” or one who believes that Vatican 2 took anything away from the Faith… However I do feel saddened when I look at how much the “baby has been thrown out with the bath water” in introducing peoples mistaken interpretations of V.C.2

I have in previous years served as an E.M.H.C. I now normally will go out of my way to receive from a priest if I can do so without causing a problem. (when receiving under both species I try to ensure that I receive at least one species from a Priest).

My normal parish uses an altar rail, and most communicants Kneel. There is a sign on the door saying “No communion on the Toungue”
There is one priest. There are no EMHC’s

Once a month the choir leads the people responses in Latin for the main 11am Sunday Mass. That same mass they also use some level of Gregorian Chant for the responses.

This experience has really opened my eyes to the beauty of these older practices

I have recently started praying the LOTH, and become more aware of the GILOTH, and thereby the GIRM.
I have read a number of encyclicals such as Redemptionis Sacramentum and others.

I feel so sad that the guidance in these documents seems to be so often ignored.
Why when every document I can find recommends that Gregorian Chant should retain Pride of place, and that the Mass and other Liturgies should be “Sung whenever possible” is it that I cannot remember more that one or 2 occasions when I have attended a mass where the priest has sung the majority of the mass?

I acknowledge that it is no longer easy as most priests are totally out of practice.

I occasionally have stuck my head into my parish church when an Eastern Rite community are having their monthly mass there. The priest has his back to the congregation, and is chanting in a language I cannot recognise (they are an Indian group, I’m not sure which eastern rite they belong to, but I assume it is one which is in Communion with Rome)
There is incense being used
It all seems so beautiful and reverent.

Why is it that we cant have - at least on a deanery level - at least one mass where the GIRM reccomendations are followed properly - i.e. a sung mass in Gregorian Chant with all the bells and whistles.
I suspect that if this were done more often fewer people would feel that they have to go all the way back to the Pre-Vatican 2 rites to experience this level of reverence in the Mass.

Am I just looking to have my cake and eat it?

Sounds like something a Cardinal suggested
youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU&feature=player_embedded

but, a few days ago …

newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/09/francis-cardinal-arinze-offers-usus.html

 

[At_Trent]

Very interesting!

Interesting take , yes. But look at how the wolves howl over the possibility that the SSPX may be reconciled. Some even tried to devour the pope when he lifted the excommunications on the four Bishops. H.H. had to write a letter to his Bishops…

H.H. is speaking about the SSPX here

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/

It’s no secret that many don’t want the SSPX back. Clergy and laity. But before saying more on this theory of them sharing blame, lets look at these words of prominent clergy.

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes:** “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed** (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: **"[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed" **(The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary.Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: **“We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” **(February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes:** “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy”** (Milestones, page 148).
ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

Now, all of this was said before H.H. BXVI became pope. And, Deo gratias, today we see that Gregorian rite has not been destroyed. So, what if all of those clergy had stayed on board and “kept an eye on” this new new Liturgy as promethius suggests ? Would we see fewer reports of abuses ?

Before we answer those questions, we have to consider how many clergy resisted the new Mass and “left”, and also, how many of those were considered prominent ? How many were there and how much power did they hold anyway ? How many were Bishops ? How many who were not Bishops would have been elevated after their resistance was known ? These clergy who resisted were up against a current running through the Curia itself. They would have been seen as trouble makers either way.

If there is to be any “blame” of “reform gone wrong”, then lay it on the shoulders of revolutionaries and innovators who won the trust of the Council. Some of those who held sway did in fact resist from the word go. I bolded the word “revolutionary” in quotes above. Here is why. (next post)

 

[At_Trent]

cont…

Provisions for the Promotion of Latin Studies

With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, We now,** in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:**

Responsibility for enforcement

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood,** all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.**

2.** In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.**
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

There we have a decree and command from the pope who himself called the Second Vatican Council ! He knew the difference between organic growth and change, and revolutionary change. So did Cardinal McIntyre…

"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

There we see the effort of a Cardinal, resisting what was clearly being proposed. What good can wee expect the lowly parish priest could have done after the Pauline Mass was introduced ?

No, it is precisely novelty, innovation, and revolutionary change that lead to the liturgical issues we discuss and question today. As we see in the quotes I provided, these are not the words of “renegade clergy” as they were called in the 70’s. These are prominent clergy speaking, two of which we’ve called the Bishop of Rome.

To blame those who saw it coming and had no part of or responsibility for the mess is to stand in denial. It’s appalling actually.

EDIT: forgot to add that most of those who initially left when the new Mass was introduced are now dead