Unmitigated Failure....are they blind?

[Agomemnon]

Here’s my take:

The Liturgical reforms of Paul VI have been an unmitigated failure. The abuses are inherent in the manufactured liturgyof Paul VI and cannot be reformed.

Any comments?

 

[Fr.JLT]

Hey, Ago!

I’m actually writing a book on that very subject. Hoping to find a publisher eventually.

– Fr. L.

 

[The_Barrister]

Agomemnon:

Here’s my take:

The Liturgical reforms of Paul VI have been an unmitigated failure. The abuses are inherent in the manufactured liturgyof Paul VI and cannot be reformed.

Any comments?

Disagree, but not vehemently so.

There are abuses, yes, but with proper pastoral care the abuses can be curbed. The old guard who hijacked the conclusions of Vee-2 are a dying breed.

 

[Crusader]

Agomemnon:

Here’s my take:

The Liturgical reforms of Paul VI have been an unmitigated failure. The abuses are inherent in the manufactured liturgyof Paul VI and cannot be reformed.

Any comments?

It’s laughable (and naive) to suggest that liturgical abuses began with the advent of the Novus Ordo Mass. Following is a wonderful letter from taken from the July-August 2004 issue of Adoremus:

The Old Mass

"Stop! Take off the rose-colored glasses and face a reality of 20/20 hindsight. I began serving “the old Mass” in 1939. I am now 73 years old, 45 years a priest, having begun my seminary studies in 1950. As a kid knowing the perfect recitation of all the Latin Mass responses, we dealt with mumbled praying of many priests. In the old days there were parishes that were known as “whiz churches”: Sunday Mass, in and out in 20 minutes.

Young priests were told the motto: “Get them out fast”. In college I was too embarrassed to invite my dormitory roommates to Sunday Mass - the blatant lack of piety was a scandal. Rarely do I look back and remember edifying experiences as being the norm. But, yes, there were some.

In my experience today the gains outshine the losses. Yes, I know where craziness exists and horror stories are a fact. But the gains were tremendous. Yes, we are still growing/becoming what we should be. Change begets excesses – the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, yet eventually resting in the middle… The recent writings and promulgations of our Holy Father give us hope, e.g., the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (USCCB Website), Sacrosanctum Concilium, and Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

Don’t despair. If there is craziness in your parish, pray for your bishop, write lovingly to the offending priest and copy it to the diocesan liturgical committee. Don’t you be crazy too – document accurately the observation of misdirection.

Having been a pastor for 27 years, in a variety of multicultural parishes, I have witnessed, in these changing times, the evolution of a profoundly rich contemporary Mass that is celebrated within the rules.

Would I go back to pre-Vatican II days? No way. I reverence the past, but live and work in the richness of the present, championing orthodoxy and “working to beat hell!”

Be patient. Treat all with charity, pray unceasingly and know that truth will conquer. As the Adoremus Bulletin tells us: “The Holy Father asks bishops and liturgists to build on the ‘riches’ of the reform while also pruning ‘serious abuses’ with ‘prudent firmness’”. (“The Foundations of Liturgical Reform”, March 2004)

Father Andre J. Meluskey
Senior Priest, St. Patrick Church
Carlisle, Pennsylvania"

It’s so refreshing to see a cleric with such a clear view of things…
Ref. adoremus.org/0704ReadersForum.html

 

[rwoehmke]

Crusader, Fr. Meluskey’s letter is perhaps the most intelligent piece that I have found posted on this forum. I too remember the mumbled “Latin” and the 15 minute low mass. Praise God for progress and for his help in making all right.

 

[otm]

Agomemnon:

Here’s my take:

The Liturgical reforms of Paul VI have been an unmitigated failure. The abuses are inherent in the manufactured liturgyof Paul VI and cannot be reformed.

Any comments?

And here’s my take: the Liturgical reforms of Paul VI are an unmitigated success. The abuses are no more inherent in this than any other liturgy. If they are inherent in anything, they are inherent in an episcopacy which does not lead.

Manufactured? So are you proclaiming that the Tridentine Mass as handed on in a vision? What you know of liturgical history is showing in its absence.

 

[Fr.JLT]

While it’s true that abuses in the Mass date back to the Last Supper, the difference between the 1962 Tridentine MIssal and the Novis Ordo is that in the Novus Ordo, almost all abuses are defensible, whereas they were not under the former rubrics. Sacrosanctum Concilium is an appeasement document, unfortunately, that says everything possible that anyone and everyone wanted. It could have been drafted by John Kerry. For instance, it states clearly that no one, not even a priest, has any right or permission to change anything in the Mass at all. Yet is also says that the priest is to work diligently to actively engage the congregation. That’s just one of many many contradictions.

At the same time, there are very very strong theological, philosophical and pastoral issues in the newly constructed Mass, as well as the very reasons for reform. That’s what my book-in-the-works is trying to deal with. Supposedly, it will be the first such examination of Sacrosanctum Concillium and the Mass in general by a parish priest who actually celebrates the Mass in a real live parish in the real live world.

I agree with the prior poster about dealing with abuses. I know that many people get all wigged out over things that are neither doctrinal nor matters of abuse . . . whther a priest wears a Gothic or a Roman chasuble, for instance. Genuine errors must be called what they are and kind fraternal correction is the way to go. However, good luck in getting anyone to do anything about it because the Vatican II documents themselves can be used to defend most anything.

– Fr. L.

 

[Ray_Marshall]

Crusader:

It’s laughable (and naive) to suggest that liturgical abuses began with the advent of the Novus Ordo Mass. Following is a wonderful letter from taken from the July-August 2004 issue of Adoremus

Thanks, Crusader!

There are dozens of these threads on this Forum and this is the most rational post that I have seen.

In a way it’s impressive how many people are really upset over liturgical abuses, but one has to ultimately realize that in a Church of a billion members, Rome can’t micro-manage its rules. Sometimes it can’t micro-manage itself. When priests are made Bishops and Cardinals, their administrative acumen is not highest on the list of job requirements. And that’s probably as it should be.

It’s sad when folks are scandalized by some (a few) priests and many don’t return. But Jesus is watching. He will cut some slack for the scandalized but I’m not sure how He will handle the scandal-makers.

 

[oat_soda]

good luck in getting anyone to do anything about it because the Vatican II documents themselves can be used to defend most anything

i read michael davies book on this subject and also heard cardinal avery dulles make the same observation. vatican ii was written in a very positive manner and can be interpreted a number of different ways, especially the document on the liturgy. there is no question that a renewal of the liturgy was wanted. but the pope’s charism as a infallible teacher in faith and morals doesn’t make him impeccable. we have the freedom and duty as the laity to question and disagree with all matters outside of faith and morals. and at the same time we are to be obiedient to the decisons of the pope weather we like them or not (girl altar servers, mass facing people, communion in hand, total vernacularization, ugly churches and bad music… etc.).

i think the fact that traditional parishes and orders are florishing is hard to discount. fssp is building new dorms so they don’t have to turn back seminarians. i think a lot of the changes in the mass were unnecessary and have hurt the faithful, but not all.

 

[JNB]

Here are two parishes that use the same Novus Ordo missal, in the same Archdiocese only a few miles away from each other.

Here are their links

www.stjoan.com
www.stagnes.net

St. Agnes while it uses the Novus Ordo missal is almost Tridentine in nature, while St. Joan of Arc seems to make it up as it goes along. An outside observer would say both parishes belong to dfifferent faiths.
Fr. JLT:

While it’s true that abuses in the Mass date back to the Last Supper, the difference between the 1962 Tridentine MIssal and the Novis Ordo is that in the Novus Ordo, almost all abuses are defensible, whereas they were not under the former rubrics. Sacrosanctum Concilium is an appeasement document, unfortunately, that says everything possible that anyone and everyone wanted. It could have been drafted by John Kerry. For instance, it states clearly that no one, not even a priest, has any right or permission to change anything in the Mass at all. Yet is also says that the priest is to work diligently to actively engage the congregation. That’s just one of many many contradictions.

At the same time, there are very very strong theological, philosophical and pastoral issues in the newly constructed Mass, as well as the very reasons for reform. That’s what my book-in-the-works is trying to deal with. Supposedly, it will be the first such examination of Sacrosanctum Concillium and the Mass in general by a parish priest who actually celebrates the Mass in a real live parish in the real live world.

I agree with the prior poster about dealing with abuses. I know that many people get all wigged out over things that are neither doctrinal nor matters of abuse . . . whther a priest wears a Gothic or a Roman chasuble, for instance. Genuine errors must be called what they are and kind fraternal correction is the way to go. However, good luck in getting anyone to do anything about it because the Vatican II documents themselves can be used to defend most anything.

– Fr. L.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Fr. Brian Harrison’s article in the book “The Reform of the Reform?” by Fr. Thomas Kocik (Ignatius Press) I believe is pertinent here

(http://www.allcatholicbooks.com/Mer...Code=ACB&Product_Code=I25x24t&Category_Code=I).

Naturally, I recommend reading the entire essay if possible. I do not cite all the statistics Fr. Harrison refers to in the original article due to space limitations; however a good portion of the article in the book appears here:

http://www.thechristianactivist.com/vol8/V8Crisis.htm

(Italics in original):

"In short, what we have witnessed in these thirty years has been a tragic polarization and fragmentation among Catholics, in regard to the liturgy. But while so many have been drawing swords either to defend or attack the post-conciliar changes in the rite of Mass, not many seem to have noticed that the very existence of such tension, bitterness, and division is about the most eloquent possible evidence that the liturgical reform introduced in the name of Vatican Council II has been seriously defective. What both liberals and conservatives often forget is the fact that, in the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas, "The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church’s unity."

… The implications of this profound truth for the post-Vatican II liturgical reform seem to me very serious. If one of the main purposes of the eucharistic liturgy is to “renew, strengthen, and deepen” [CCC 1396] the unity of all Catholics in the one Mystical Body, then what are we to think of a reform that, whatever its positive results may have been, has also managed to provoke more discord, mutual alienation, and disunity than any officially introduced liturgical innovation in the entire history of the Church?

… Now, can the new rites be said to have promoted “unity” [Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) no. 1] among believers, when we see more strife and disunity than ever in connection with the liturgy? It may be true that Catholics and Protestants now feel less divided than before, but not in the way the Council Fathers expected. They hoped that liturgical reform would help Protestants to become more Catholic in their thinking; but all that has happened is that Catholics have demonstrably become more Protestant in their thinking! The Vatican II Fathers, as we have just heard, hoped that a revised liturgy would be a means of “help[ing] to call all mankind into the Church’s fold” [SC, no. 1]. But how could anyone claim that this hope has been even partially fulfilled when in most countries rates of conversion to Catholicism have plummeted to an all-time low, priests and religious have abandoned their holy vocations in tens of thousands, innumerable other Catholics have given up the faith altogether, and of those who do still profess it, fewer than ever now attend Mass regularly?

(Pp. 154-157)

(Cont. …)

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Finally, can anyone seriously claim that the postconciliar liturgy has managed to “impart an ever-increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful” [SC, no. 1] (as the Council Fathers hoped) when reliable surveys show that fewer Catholics than ever believe in the central and fundamental mystery of the Mass: that is, the true change of the bread and wine into the living Body and Blood of our crucified and risen Savior?

… In other words, disbelief in the Real Presence among professing Catholics in the United States increases in direct proportion to the proportion of their own lifetime in which the Eucharist has been celebrated with the new postconciliar Missal.

Now, I am not suggesting, of course, that the recent liturgical changes should bear all the blame for this decadence. A number of factors have undoubtedly contributed to this deplorable situation, which is in turn only one part — although a very major one — of the more generalized crisis of faith, morals and discipline which has afflicted Catholicism in the last thirty years, especially in the affluent and secularized West. But I do submit that the experience of the last quarter-century should be sufficient for us to recognize in retrospect, with all due respect to the memory of Pope Paul VI, that the way in which the liturgical reform was handled after Vatican II has been one significant cause of the present decline in Eucharistic faith and practice. After all, if the alarming facts and statistics we have surveyed do not convince us that the reform was badly done, what conceivable evidence would convince us?

Not only is it clear that the new rite of Mass has failed to achieve the principal objectives which were clearly set out at the beginning of the Council’s document on the Liturgy; it seems to me highly debatable whether even the secondary objectives have really been achieved. For instance, it is often said that the laity now participate more actively in the Mass instead of being mere passive spectators. In a sense this may be true. But if so, this Victory must be judged an extremely hollow one for at least two reasons. In the first place, it must be remembered that in most countries a much smaller percentage of the laity even attend Church at all than was the case previously; and those millions of nominal Catholics who have now completely given up going to Mass can scarcely be said to participate more actively in it.

Secondly, of the minority who still do attend Mass their “more active participation” has often consisted in doing things that only the clergy could previously do: handling the sacred vessels, touching the Sacred Host itself through communion in the hand, standing instead of kneeling to receive it, proclaiming the Scriptures, passing freely in and out of the sanctuary, distributing Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers, and so on. But this kind of “clericalization” of the laity is not what the Council Fathers had in mind when they called for more “active participation”: Sacrosanctum Concilium does not say one word about opening up an ever-increasing number of “ministries” to the laity; this tendency toward a certain liturgical “egalitarianism” has, I believe, become part of the very problem we have already outlined. It has often fomented division among the faithful (since conservative lay people dislike the trend while liberals applaud it), and by emphasizing the common, human and “fraternal sharing” aspects of the liturgy at the expense of the divine, mysterious, and sacred aspects, it has contributed to loss of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species.

(Pp. 157-159)

 

[HagiaSophia]

The Barrister:

Disagree, but not vehemently so.

There are abuses, yes, but with proper pastoral care the abuses can be curbed. The old guard who hijacked the conclusions of Vee-2 are a dying breed.

Unfortunately the poison of their arrows will remain with us for some time.

 

[TobyLue]

A few observations

For instance, it states clearly that no one, not even a priest, has any right or permission to change anything in the Mass at all. Yet is also says that the priest is to work diligently to actively engage the congregation. That’s just one of many many contradictions.

I really do not see any contradition here. Sure, a priest is not supposed to change anything, but engaging the congregation has nothing to do with making changes. The congregation should actively participate and not sit like a bump on a log which is what we used to do during the Tridentine mass. Oh, don’t get me wrong. I still love the Tridentine Mass as long as the priest does not rush like a flash throught it. I remember as a child that I had my Fr. Steadman missalette but I could never keep up with the priest. He would start the Credo and I would try to read as fast as possible and he would be through when I was just halfway through it. It would take him less than 10 seconds for the Last Gospel and give the final blessing like just a flash and off he went and off went the whole congregation without even uttering an “amen”. Nobody knew at what part of the mass the priest was because he mumbled and zapped through the prayers. Everybody would come into the church quietly, (which we still should) and in just half a hour or less we were out. :yawn: At my parish we celebrate the AU (Anglican Usage Liturgy under the Latin Rite), but there have been times when our priest has celebrated the current mass at other churches and the reverence is still there. As long as the rubrics are followed, there should be no problem. I think the problems arise when the “liturgy committees” take over and start introducing their own ideas, start using props to make things more “lively” and the priest lets them do whatever they want for the sake not upsetting them.
And as far as the “Novus Ordo” is concerened, this is what I found and which I shall post.

By the way, there is no such thing as a Novus Ordo Mass. ALL Mass are officially entitled, *Roman Missal of [whatever year].*If we are to use a nickname then Tridentine Mass and Vatican II Mass (or Pope Paul VI Mass) would be more appropriate. The term Novus Ordo is a term encouraged by the schismatics to disparage the Mass. ANYONE who disparages ANY Mass is a blasphemer. ALL valid Masses are Holy

Can anybody please point out to me some official Vatican document where it states that the current mass is to be called “Novus Ordo”?

Reverence is what is necessary, not jumpy, jazzy guitars, with rock music. Bring back the statues, which incidentally there was never a order issued to get rid of them, get rid of all catchy phrase banners, trees in the santuary and start making the Eucharist the center of the mass and not the people. Priest need to make sure the people BOW during the Creed, and BOW before receiving our precious Lord. Priest need to make sure the children, as well as the adults, are catechized properly and that it is the NORM to receive Our Lord on the tongue with the OPTION, again the OPTION of receiving communion in the hand. How many of your children have been taught to receive our Lord on the tongue?

Witness the current mass on EWTN. Its like heaven on earth It should be the same at all churches, but they are like night and day.
If any priests are reading this, I challenge you to see how many people will start coming to mass if you celebrate just one mass each Sunday the way its celebrated on EWTN. The Mass is something very, very special and it should be that way. Kids can get all that jazz at any school dance, teen gathering, radio, etc. etc. Some priest are so afraid of losing people, that they will introduce all sorts of inovations to bring them back. Teach them reverence for our Lord and you will see wonders.

Sorry, I had to vent…
.

 

[TobyLue]

A few observations

For instance, it states clearly that no one, not even a priest, has any right or permission to change anything in the Mass at all. Yet is also says that the priest is to work diligently to actively engage the congregation. That’s just one of many many contradictions.

I really do not see any contradition here. Sure, a priest is not supposed to change anything, but engaging the congregation has nothing to do with making changes. The congregation should actively participate and not sit like a bump on a log which is what we used to do during the Tridentine mass. Oh, don’t get me wrong. I still love the Tridentine Mass as long as the priest does not rush like a flash throught it. I remember as a child that I had my Fr. Steadman missalette but I could never keep up with the priest. He would start the Credo and I would try to read as fast as possible and he would be through when I was just halfway through it. It would take him less than 10 seconds for the Last Gospel and give the final blessing like just a flash and off he went and off went the whole congregation without even uttering an “amen”. Nobody knew at what part of the mass the priest was because he mumbled and zapped through the prayers. Everybody would come into the church quietly, (which we still should) and in just half a hour or less we were out. :yawn: At my parish we celebrate the AU (Anglican Usage Liturgy under the Latin Rite), but there have been times when our priest has celebrated the current mass at other churches and the reverence is still there. As long as the rubrics are followed, there should be no problem. I think the problems arise when the “liturgy committees” take over and start introducing their own ideas, start using props to make things more “lively” and the priest lets them do whatever they want for the sake not upsetting them.
And as far as the “Novus Ordo” is concerened, this is what I found and which I shall post.

By the way, there is no such thing as a Novus Ordo Mass. ALL Mass are officially entitled, *Roman Missal of [whatever year].*If we are to use a nickname then Tridentine Mass and Vatican II Mass (or Pope Paul VI Mass) would be more appropriate. The term Novus Ordo is a term encouraged by the schismatics to disparage the Mass. ANYONE who disparages ANY Mass is a blasphemer. ALL valid Masses are Holy

Can anybody please point out to me some official Vatican document where it states that the current mass is to be called “Novus Ordo”?

Reverence is what is necessary, not jumpy, jazzy guitars, with rock music. Bring back the statues, which incidentally there was never a order issued to get rid of them, get rid of all catchy phrase banners, trees in the santuary and start making the Eucharist the center of the mass and not the people. Priest need to make sure the people BOW during the Creed, and BOW before receiving our precious Lord. Priest need to make sure the children, as well as the adults, are catechized properly and that it is the NORM to receive Our Lord on the tongue with the OPTION, again the OPTION of receiving communion in the hand. How many of your children have been taught to receive our Lord on the tongue?

Witness the current mass on EWTN. Its like heaven on earth It should be the same at all churches, but they are like night and day.
If any priests are reading this, I challenge you to see how many people will start coming to mass if you celebrate just one mass each Sunday the way its celebrated on EWTN. The Mass is something very, very special and it should be that way. Kids can get all that jazz at any school dance, teen gathering, radio, etc. etc. Some priest are so afraid of losing people, that they will introduce all sorts of inovations to bring them back. Teach them reverence for our Lord and you will see wonders.

Sorry, I had to vent…
.

 

[Agomemnon]

Fr. JLT:

While it’s true that abuses in the Mass date back to the Last Supper, the difference between the 1962 Tridentine MIssal and the Novis Ordo is that in the Novus Ordo, almost all abuses are defensible, whereas they were not under the former rubrics. Sacrosanctum Concilium is an appeasement document, unfortunately, that says everything possible that anyone and everyone wanted. It could have been drafted by John Kerry. For instance, it states clearly that no one, not even a priest, has any right or permission to change anything in the Mass at all. Yet is also says that the priest is to work diligently to actively engage the congregation. That’s just one of many many contradictions.

At the same time, there are very very strong theological, philosophical and pastoral issues in the newly constructed Mass, as well as the very reasons for reform. That’s what my book-in-the-works is trying to deal with. Supposedly, it will be the first such examination of Sacrosanctum Concillium and the Mass in general by a parish priest who actually celebrates the Mass in a real live parish in the real live world.

I agree with the prior poster about dealing with abuses. I know that many people get all wigged out over things that are neither doctrinal nor matters of abuse . . . whther a priest wears a Gothic or a Roman chasuble, for instance. Genuine errors must be called what they are and kind fraternal correction is the way to go. However, good luck in getting anyone to do anything about it because the Vatican II documents themselves can be used to defend most anything.

– Fr. L.

Fr L,
I agree that people try to use the V2 documents to defend their ‘abuses’. While myself I point out the Old Mass was said all through V2 and that this Novus Ordo doesn’t even comply with Vatican II. Where’s the Latin? Where’s the Gregorian Chant? Where’s the polyphany? How is the Sum and Summit of the Faith treated in Church?

Then I am ignored. Or called radical. How can it be radical to want what Vatican II said?

Some reflections. There are abuses (now accepted by some that have accelerated the demise of the Catholic faith among congregants. Of these ‘communion in the hand’, ‘clericalization of the laity’, and the ALWAYS and abuse of girl-altar-boys. Added to this the widespread apostasy that contraception (an evil orientation).

What really bothers me is that RS is ignored just as Inaestimable Donum has been ignored. Paul VI warned against ‘communion in the hand’ and stipulated that it should be revoked if loss of faith and reverence become known. Hello! What does it take to show that this has actually happened.

When the last GIRM was being introduced they actually discussed weather we would still kneel. This is ridiculous. With all the angels’ prostrating around us at the consecration why shouldnt we at least kneel?

I’ve ranted long enough. Fr. L…I’ll buy your book when it comes out. God Bless

 

[PASCENDI]

Agomemnon:

Fr L,

I’ve ranted long enough. Fr. L…I’ll buy your book when it comes out. God Bless

I’d like to see it too

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I find this thread to be quite amusing, and utterly devoid of any knowledge of the history of the Church!

Every single major council produced results like this. Take the polarization around the Mass, for example. Following the Council of Trent it took the French 100 years to adopt the Missal that was produced as a result of the call for reform. How about the Council of Ephesus which produced a major schism that remains to this day?

Sheesh! Transitions like this are always painful, always produce hurts, always lead to the exact sort of problems we see today. The only difference is that, with modern methods of communication, it’s happening much faster.

Are the Liturgical reforms a failure or an “unmitigated disaster”? Not hardly. Are the subject to abuse? You betch’ 'em! Were the reforms following Trent any different? Not at all! Certain prevalent abuses were addressed and rubrics written to circumvent them. So, new ones arrived on the scene.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Deacon Ed

 

[Fr.JLT]

Thank you for your very condescending response to the rest of us, Deacon Ed. The question was not about the history of the Church. However, I did mention that history above, very briefly.

Of course, we know that abuses and difficulties followed every reform. Bishops beat each other bloody at the COunciul of Trent. When the Mass changed from Greek to Latin, it is said that people were kileld over it. When the Protestant schism happened . . we don’t need to visit the piles of bodies resulting. But these things were all the result of doctrinal issues and the defense of Truth.

But, if one IS familiar with the history of the Church, one would know that the Second Vatican Council was the first and only Council of the Church convened without any doctrinal cause to do so. This reform is unique and, as such, inconsistent with the history of the Church. All other councils were convened to hammer out definitions of doctrine and dogma and to codify them. Vatican II was not called under any such circumstances. Neither was there any matter of doctrine in the Mass as it existed that needed to be corrected. That is an irrefutible fact.

This is a unique question, concerning unique actions, taken by the Church following a unique council under unique circumstances in the history of the Church. The history of the Church’s reforms and Councils really is moot, other than to further prove to us that Vatican II is entirely unique.

– Fr. L.

 

[Olympia]

Deacon Ed:

I find this thread to be quite amusing, and utterly devoid of any knowledge of the history of the Church!

Every single major council produced results like this. Take the polarization around the Mass, for example. Following the Council of Trent it took the French 100 years to adopt the Missal that was produced as a result of the call for reform. How about the Council of Ephesus which produced a major schism that remains to this day? . . . . . . . . . . . . Were the reforms following Trent any different? Not at all! Certain prevalent abuses were addressed and rubrics written to circumvent them. So, new ones arrived on the scene.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Deacon Ed

Can you please give us some details of these historical facts??