Our friends at Rorate noticed a piece at Vatican Insider in which His Eminence Walter Card. Brandmüller expressed himself about the Novus Ordo, aka “the Mass of Paul VI” and “the Ordinary Form”. He says what we know is true but few people are willing to say openly: the Novus Ordo is NOT the Mass of the Council. That is to say, the Council Fathers mandated a reform, but what we got was NOT the reform they mandated.
Sacrosanctum Concilium was never properly implemented.
Let’s have a look at what Card. Brandmüller had to say with some of my usually emphases and comments:
Q: The Second Vatican Council was a Pastoral Council that also provided dogmatic explanations. Had there ever been anything like it previously in the history of the Church?
[Brandmüller:] It does in fact seem as though Vatican II marked the beginning of a new type of Council. The language that was used during it and the completeness of the texts show that the Council fathers was not as much motivated by the need to pass judgement on controversial new ecclesiastical and theological issues, but rather by the wish to turn their attention to public opinion within the Church and the entire world, in the spirit of the annunciation.
Q: Shouldn’t a Council be declared a failure if fifty years on it has not been warmly received by the faithful? Benedict XVI warned against a misleading interpretation of the Council, particularly in terms of the hermeneutics of [rupture]…
[B:] This is one of those cliché questions that stem from a new existential sentiment; that feeling of confusion that is typical of our times. But what is fifty years after all?! Cast your mind back to the Council of Nicaea in 325. [Card. B is an historian. He gets it. Furthermore, a sound historical perspective informs us that Vatican II was not nearly as important as many other Councils of the past.] The disputes surrounding the dogma of this Council – about the nature of the Son, that is, whether he was made of the same substance as the Father or not – continued for more than a hundred years. St. Ambrose was ordained Bishop of Milan on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and had to fight hard against the Arians who refused to accept the Nicene provisions. Briefly afterwards came a new Council: the First Council of Constantinople of 381 […]
Q: Let us talk now about the fruits which the Vatican II produced. Can you comment on this?
[B:] First of all of course the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” in comparison with the Tridentine Catechism: after the Council of Trent, the Catechismus Romanus was launched in order to provide parish priests, preachers etcetera with guidelines on how to preach and announce the Gospel or evangelize.
Even the 1983 Code of Canon Law can be considered a consequence of the Council. [Here we go! …] I must emphasise that the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II which by the way has not really been implemented even to this day. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] The indiscriminate removal of Latin and Gregorian Chants from liturgical celebrations and the erection of numerous altars were absolutely not acts prescribed by the Council. [And the distortion of the reform goes beyond those points.]
With the benefit of hindsight, let us cast our minds back in particular to the lack of sensitivity shown in terms of care for the faithful and in the pastoral carelessness shown in the liturgical form. One need only think of the Church’s excesses, reminiscent of the Beeldenstorm (the statue/image storm) which occurred in the 18th century. Excesses which catapulted numerous faithful into total chaos, leaving many fumbling around in the dark.
Just about anything and everything has been said on this subject. Meanwhile, the liturgy has come to be seen as a mirror image of Church life, subject to an organic historical evolution which cannot – as did indeed happen – suddenly be changed by decreepar ordre de mufti. [Or even by the order of Paul VI for that matter!] And we are still paying the price today.
We sure are.
But, brick by brick, we are rebuilding.