No one’s answered my question:
Why block the 1962 Latin Mass?
If it’s valid, and people are (gasp!) enthusiastic about it, why not let them have it?
It’s strange, don’t you think?
I think if we could penetrate to the true core of the objection, it would be very enlightening.
Let me be direct; if the Adversary wished to harm the Church, what better way than to whisper in some prelates ears to:
- Dump the prayers to St. Michael,
- Dump the Aspersion;
- Cause the priest to turn his back to the tabernacle;
- Play down references to Hell and Satan.
Then let there arise a Mass that focuses more on the celebrant and the participation of the congregation, than Him to whom the worship should be directed.
No need to destroy it. Just water it down, and let it wither away with indifference.
Come Sunday, you’ll have a few bright-eyed enthusiasts who like the conviviality of the NO and a few old dears trying to prepare for their mortal end, while the unwed young bucks and lassies are at home in bed having a lie-in.
PS: To those worried about all the reforms being wasted, I say that whenever I hear the words ‘modernisation’, ‘reform’, or ‘progress’ I figuratively gird my loins, because I know someone’s going to get it in the neck, and it could be me.
The words ‘modernisation’, ‘reform’, and ‘progress’ in themselves do not necessarily bode anything good.
In fact, in the deceitful language of modern business, they usually mean sackings and a degradation or curtailment of service.
e.g. They’ve been ‘reforming’ the education system here in the UK for the past 30+ years, and it’s gone so well you now have university students who can’t write properly or do basic math.
