“If the crisis of church life today is above all a crisis of liturgy, then the renewal of the church must begin with a renewal of the liturgy.”
Sound familiar?
This was the Swiss-born Kurt Card. Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity as quoted by the German section of Vatican Radio.
We’ve heard from Card. Koch before.
Here is a translation someone sent me for our convenience.
Allowing the Old Latin Mass is just “a first step” according to Kurt Cardinal Koch, an official of the Roman Curia. The time is however not yet ripe for the next steps Koch said on the Weekend in Freiburg. Liturgical questions are overshadowed by ideology especially in Germany. Rome will only be able to act further when Catholics show more readiness to think about a new liturgical reform “for the good of the Church.” The Cardinal spoke at a conference on the theology of Joseph Ratzinger, which also considered Ratzinger’s pontificate as Pope Benedict XVI. In July 2007 Pope Benedict decreed that Tridentine Rite Masses according to the Missal of 1962 may once again be celebrated world wide. The Missal of 1970 is however still the “normal form” of the Eucharistic Celebration in the Roman Church. Koch is the President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. He tried to refute the charge that Pope Benedict is going against the Council in liturgical questions: “the Pope suffers from this accusation.” On the contrary, the Holy Father’s intention is rather to implement conciliar teachings on the liturgy which have been ignored up till now. Present day liturgical practice does not always have any real basis in the Council. For example, celebration versus populum was never mandated by the Council, says the Cardinal. A renewal of the form of divine worship is necessary for the interior renewal of the Church: “Since the crisis of the Church today is above all a crisis of the liturgy, it is necessary to begin the renewal of the Church today with a renewal of the Liturgy.
I’ve said it before. I will say it again.
There can be no renewal of any aspect of our Catholic lives and identity without first a revitalization of our liturgical worship.
Fathers, implement Summorum Pontificum in your parishes.
And read this.
Loading ...
Here in the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin Summorum Pontificum has as much possibility as a snowball in hell. Kind people, pray for us.
Wow! I’m all in. This 1993 Methodist convert’s first EF Mass will be on 2/19. I’m really excited and anxiously awaiting the graces from Jesus and Our Lady that will no doubt be flowing. Does anyone have any recommendations for preparation?
You know, there are some Good Priests out there who offer lovely Novus Ordo Masses with beautifully enunciated Latin … Who just don’t get why the TLM ? Who just don’t get the problem with the girl altar boys and army of EMHC’s. I don’t know how to express my view without seeming to desparage their personal exercising of their priestly ministry. Except to say clearly that one does not equate the other, of course. It is a matter I mull … How wonderful orthodox priests can be so enamored with the liberalities in the west today.
Preparation. My humble suggestion is to read over the text of the liturgy in English. Then, not to try to read along your first few time during Mass. Rather, let the Latin prayers and chant pour over you, move through you, and stir your heart and soul. You will know where to focus your heart because your eyes will recognize the essentials of what is taking place before you. Read the Mass outside of Mass at first – when you’ve fallen in love, learn the Latin.
EucharisticLove,
Remember that the Mass is the Mass. The parts of the EF Mass correspond to the parts of the OF Mass. As emphasized in this newcomers guide my Latin Mass community has used”
http://www.knoxlatinmass.net/OldNewMass.htm
Have this correspondence of EF Mass – OF Mass in mind, but don’t have your head buried in a missalette, trying to identify the Latin and the English. Just look and listen the first few times, and let the sights and sounds soak in. If you can identify the Kyrie Eleison at the beginning, the Credo right after the sermon, the Sanctus when the bell rings for the first time to signal the beginning of the Canon, then keep your eyes on the priest to see the two elevations, then the Pater Noster after the end of the Canon, then finally the Agnus Dei before communion, then you’re on your way.
Latin’s great, but if there is going to be any real liturgical reform in our local parishes, I believe it will be because permission is given to celebrate the EF in English. Our parishes and parish priests need exposure to the EF’s ars celebrandi–its rubrics and beautiful prayers and respect for the priest, altar and sanctuary. Again, I love Latin, but there are many, many people who are not open to celebrating the liturgy in anything but their native, vulgar language. We can give theological reasons for incense, genuflections and ad orientem, but Latin is one that many people just won’t buy, at least not yet. I may not be one of those people, but I can’t say I blame them, either. We certainly need to reclaim traditions that were jettisoned, but when it comes to people, we need to work with what we have.
C’mon, now. How many times do you need to renew it? One has to wonder about a renewal that requires so many renews. How about we renew it right back to the way it was in 1954?
Thank you so much, Henry and Ann. I will take your suggestions to heart. My prayers for you this evening.
This is quite informative about the state of Pope Benedict’s so-called “Marshall plan”; there is indeed a “new liturgical reform” in the works and in the cards, but Benedict and his associates are taking a much different method and more gradual method of implementation than that used by Paul VI to implement the “liturgical reform” of his day. Benedict and his associates believe, rightly it would seem, that for the moment liturgical issues are too bound up with ideological issues and cultural, political, and religious conflicts in the modern-day Church, and that thus any alterations by Rome to the status quo of the liturgy would likely lead to schisms, controversies, and the falling away of some part of the faithful; and so, they are attempting to proceed in a more calculated way, preparing the people for the reform by allowing them to first-hand discover the need for it before actually implementing it.
To start with, they have already implemented the first step of this reform, the return of the EF to the life of the Church. Through this, it is apparent Pope Benedict hopes and believes that a greater reverence for the liturgy and a greater awareness of liturgical issues will arise among the faithful, that exposure to the EF celebrated in the ancient fashion will lead the faithful to become aware of the need for legitimate liturgical reform in the life of the Church in general. This reform will take place in the short term in grassroots changes to the ars celebrandi and ars orandi among greater and greater parts of the faithful, but will eventually culminate in the longer term in concrete liturgical regulations and alterations by the legitimate Roman authorities. These regulations would perhaps eventually (in the veerrry long term) result in a “tertium quid,” a single, unified, and traditional liturgy with elements of both the EF and the OF.
In the short term, however, it is apparent that the ball is, so to speak, in our court. Pope Benedict wants all of the faithful to be exposed to traditional liturgical rites and practices in whatever way possible; this includes both exposing people to the EF, and exposing them to OF Masses celebrated in more traditional fashions, as Pope Benedict himself celebrates them. It also includes educating people about the true teachings of the Vatican Council on the liturgy, and the “hermeneutic of continuity” in general.
Very exciting, very interesting stuff. The Holy Father’s efforts should receive the support of all faithful Catholics, whether or not they prefer the (properly celebrated) OF or the EF. A true liturgical reform of the manner proposed would be nothing but good for the life of the Church as a whole.
Long live His Holiness Pope Benedict!
Henry:
That is a nice breakdown and good explanation of the things to be on the lookout for when making a transition from the OF to the EF, or even vice-versa. Kudos to your Latin Mass community.
I thought I was an intellectual existential atheist, and then I though I was an intellectual Novus Ordo Catholic after I converted. The irony in all of this is that I used to disdain the FSSPX. After all that intellectual pride, I found new pride in hating SSPX. Now I sometimes attend their masses, and they are some of the most humble, beautiful, souls I have ever met.
My grandfather was a Mensa-level Freemason. Just because one is smart doesn’t mean they have the Truth. Christ was born poor, confounded lawyers, and died on the Cross; but this world was always just a stopping point for Him.
My point being, one may have their own agenda (like I did, or the Modernists do in our Church), but Christ has His agenda, which will not be confounded!
Also, Aquinas speaks equally on predestination and free-will; the interchange is fascinating in his Summa. From what I read, man has free will, but God, being Omnicient, has known the fate of every man before Creation. Am I mistaken here? Seriously, I’d love to get some insights since this is confounding me!
Excellent firestorm of a homily sort of about this by Fr. Bonaventure, FFI.
http://airmaria.com/?sn=111106&vp=24436&prefx=hmly&plyrnb=1&ttl=Homily
I have weighed in about reform several times and it could be interpreted that I am totally against the TLM and totally support the Novus Ordo mass. This is not true. I believe that both are in need of reform and I would be happy to see the Novus Ordo reformed and changed in many ways. However, it strikes me that the average TLM devotee, if there is such a thing, will not be content until Vatican 2 is dead and buried. I will fight against this to my dying breath. This is what the TLM has come to symbolize for me. Not that anyone especially cares, nor should they.
Cardinal Koch says:
“Rome will only be able to act further when Catholics show more readiness to think about a new liturgical reform ‘for the good of the Church.'”
Your Eminence (I’m sure you must be a reader of this blog):
Allow me to respectfully disagree with a Prince of the Church, if I may be so bold (and I am). If you wait for Catholics to show more readiness for reform, Your Eminence, you’ll wait until the Second Coming. By then, I suspect, it may be too late to implement the reforms you desire. Lead and they will follow. That is the way it is with shepherds and flocks, after all.
If the leadership of the Church is interested in restoring traditional liturgy (and by “traditional” I don’t mean “Tridentine”), universally, then you should all act now whilst apathy abounds. Now is the time to make all the changes you want, in fact, because nobody knows the difference any longer and, moreover, nobody cares. Remember how all the leftist clergy and whining liturgists here in the USA predicted calamity over the new translation of the English-language edition of the Roman Missal and how NOTHING AT ALL came of their predictions of gloom and doom. Catholics in the pews didn’t rise up and revolt, as the loudest amongst us imagined they surely would. The new Missal was introduced and the response from the pews was “yawn”.
We’re completely and totally oblivious by now, sir! That’s a horrific thing to say and a more horrific situation to observe and acknowledge…but since it happens to be the situation that obtains, why not take advantage of it? Want to impose more Latin, more chant, more ceremony, more reverence, ad orientem worship, kneeling for the reception of the Eucharist, an end to the abuse of extraodinary ministers acting as ordinary ministers and all the rest? Now’s the time to do it.
The flock don’t know Benedict XVI from Billy Graham, my Lord; they simply aren’t going to stroke over a priest turning ’round the other way. They may be bewildered by it at first but after a couple of months they’ll forget it was ever done any other way. Will they kvetch about the Latin? No! They aren’t paying any attentionto what is said at Mass, my Lord. They’re all texting each other. Many won’t even notice that a different language has been introduced, therefore, much less get their knickers in a twist over it. And the ones who do notice just won’t care…except, of course, for those of us who have actually been longing for Latin and good liturgy to make a comeback, that is. Yes, we’ll notice, alright.
Sure, sure…the “Magisterium of Nuns” (as someone has dubbed them) and priests who are so far left of liberal that they make Unitarian Universalists blush will get hysterical and may even leave the Church over it. I know what you’re thinking…two birds with one stone, right? No? Oh. Beg your pardon. I guess now everyone knows what I was thinking. In the immortal words of the Governor of Texas, “Oops”.
Now is the time, Eminence, not tomorrow. Catholics will not magically become more ready tomorrow; they’ll only become more and more apathetic, more and more ignorant of their Faith and more and more unconcerned about what unfolds before them while they sit catatonically in their pews. But if you renew the liturgy you will renew the Church. Oh…wait a minute. That’s what you said, isn’t it? I beg your pardon, sir, now I’m raining on your parade AND stealing your lines. Mea culpa.
Respectfully,
Centristian
Rome will only be able to act further when Catholics show more readiness to think about a new liturgical reform “for the good of the Church.”
Tagging on to Centristian’s thoughts…
This notion that the spiritually and catechetically illiterate children of the Church must first signal their readiness for liturgical reform (perhaps more accurately called liturgical repair) strikes me as utterly weak and an abdication of fatherly duty. It’s like saying that people asleep in a burning house must first wake up gasping for air before the door can be kicked in to rescue them, only worse. Souls are perishing.
Serious question……
In about 5 years or so, why not change the offeratory and communion sections back? The resulting missal would be almost identical to the 1964 translation except for the multiple Eucharistic prayers, and almost all of the changes would be changes to the part of the Priest only…and so from the congregations perspective, it would actually be less of a change. I think the wording of the Offeratory is the most major difference I note between the revised NO and the EF in wording. I will admit that I’m still torn about the wisdom keeping the Prayers of the Faithful and Sign of Peace, at least in their current form. They do seem kinda distracting.
Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
Centristan – I believe much of your analysis is very pertinent.
Maybe a step by step (3 phases) approach would be best:
Step 1 in 2012:
– Move the sign of peace to before the offertory
– Make kneeling compulsory for receipt of communion worldwide, whilst still temporarily allowing communion kneeling in the hand
– Scrap Eucharistic Prayer 2
– Strongly recommend that the canon of the Mass be in Latin all over the world
Step 2 in 2016:
– Make the kyrie/sanctus/agnus dei compulsory in Latin/Greek globally for Roman Rite catholics
– Strongly recommend ad orientem for the 2nd part of the Mass
– Change the offertory prayers
Step 3:
The strong suggestions become compulsory.
Fellow WDTPRS’ers, any other suggestions?
Ooops…I forgot…Step 1 definitely ought to include also the compulsory setting up of the Benedictine arrangement
in all Roman catholic churches in the world…
I Saw a Clip of A “Showbiz” Priest from the Philippines mock The Latin Mass in His Weekly TV Mass,imitating whispering sounds for effect,He Said The TLM was Discouraged “Active Participation” but The NO did Encourage It.
and Yes,He Does not “Say the BLACK,and Do the RED”(Complete with Dancers and EMHCs).
Now is the time for reform, both masses. But done by the authentic magisterium of the church. This business of forcing things into the mass you think needs reforming should stop. The magisterium of nuns was horrid but the magisterium of priests wont be much better. It needs to be done under the guidance of the authentic magisterium.
Mr. Werling,
A pertinent point indeed. So much “reform,” “renewal,” and so on is nauseating and mind-numbing.
To those suggesting certain incremental reforms to the Novus Ordo:
Without disagreeing with your suggestions, what about the Propers? Those are quite significant, yet often overlooked.
Centristian: Great post! I laughed out loud. I needed that on this first day of February.
Ambrose Jnr:
While your plan, I’m sure, would delight publishers of Catholic liturgical books, it really might cause a legitimate rebellion! Consider all the parishes, priories, convents, schools, chaplains and retired or independent clergymen who would have to pay for all those expensive new books as things were tinkered with every few years. Catholic parishes, institutions, and clergy across the Anglophone world have just shelled out a mint for new Roman Missals.
I would say that Rome would do better, in that case, to just leave the texts as they are and everything where it is. Without actually changing the texts of the Mass or repositioning its parts, a decree could be issued mandating other needed reforms. For example:
1. The restoration of the ad orientem posture of the celebrant during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, at first mandatory only at churches that retain their original altars, perhaps, along with the removal of versus populum altars at such churches provided that they are not of a permanent character and may be conveniently removed (although the costly removal even of versus populum altars of a permanent character would be recommended as a project to be embarked upon in time as an institution’s finances warrant).
2. Churches that do not retain their original altars, or that were built after the habit of versus populum celebration became normative, might be advised to likewise prepare for a return to the celebrant’s ad orientem posture in the future, and that they ought to, in that case, prepare for any adjustments that may need to be made to their sanctuaries to accomodate the practice (many wouldn’t need to do anything).
3. Mandate appropriate music for worship as Catholic liturgical tradition defines “appropriate” (refer to “Tra le sollecitudini”. Pius X. 1903). Clearly define and positively forbid inappropriate music. Organize and mandate attendance at symposiums.
4. Demand dignity and decorum from the service at the altar. Issue a reinforcement of the correct rubrics for acolytes and other inferior ministers and mandate that all such servers at the altar be ACTUALLY TRAINED–CORRECTLY–to perform their roles! Remind pastors that servers are not there to sit and do nothing but twiddle their thumbs while the celebrant ignores ceremony, entirely, and just does everything himself in a “get it over and done with” fashion. Servers in the liturgy have a ceremonial function aimed at adding dignity to the liturgy and those functions need to be faithfully carried out. Such dignity might not be best imparted by little kids, incidentally. With that in mind, get away from the idea that only cute (but often incapable) little “altar boys” may serve Mass. Encourage able adult men to fill these roles, learning how to assist the celebrant at more solemn and complex forms of the Mass (and other liturgies/ceremonies). An adult service at the altar would also put an end to…a certain other problem that plagues the Church at the moment.
5. Compell bishops to be retrained in the art of liturgical pontification. They have to set the liturgical example for their dioceses and when that example means removing and replacing their own miters, perambulating about the chancel in common fashion without making use of the crozier and unaccompanied by attendants, being chatty with concelebrants and gift presenters at the Offertory, looking at their watches, shaking hands like politicians and socializing with worshippers as they recess down the aisle, and other bad habits that replace solemnity with sloppiness and familiarity, it sends the wrong message, entirely, to the rest of the clergy. Bishops need to be trained how to behave like bishops again. Bishops should further be mandated to organize and then ought to compell their priests to attend symposiums that demonstrate how liturgical worship ought to look, sound, and feel, as opposed to what has been going on all these years. Finally, it is bishops who ought to be told to reintroduce Latin to their cathedral liturgies, at least with respect to the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, the Canon, the Final Blessing, and the Dismissal. It is the bishop who must set for his diocese the example of a “Latin Mass” for the Latin Church.
6. Send the extraordinary lay ministers out of the sanctuary and into the hospitals and nursing homes. Encourage the participation in the liturgy of permanent deacons and seminarians who are instituted lectors and acolytes. Encourage upright young men to train to become instituted acolytes, if necessary, and to serve their roles at Mass, properly vested. No more (barely trained) men and women emerging from the pews to invade the sanctuary in order to receive Communion first, before everyone else, only then to disperse into the aisles to pretend to act in a way that they ought not to and were never meant to. The use of lay men and women from the congregation as ministers of Holy Communion is inappropriate, undignified, and imparts a common, pedestrian flavor to the rite.
Begin with those steps and worry about making more earth-shattering changes later. With those steps the Church will go a long, long way toward getting her liturgical house in order. That’s quite enough to chew on for a while. Later on, after such reforms have sunk in and have changed attitudes about the liturgy, the Church can visit the idea of restructuring the Order of Mass, if necessary, and of training the clergy in Latin once again so that the use of Latin can be mandated for the Canon and for other things. You can’t mandate Latin when nobody knows how to speak it; the clergy have to be educated in Latin again before that can happen.
I’m trying to figure out how one would characterize a mentality that has an obsession – yes, an obsession – with tampering. I know there is a clinical term for someone like that but I just now can’t put my finger on it. In any case, one has to sit back and admire the arrogance of some in the Church who believe that they and their hand-picked cohorts can “improve” an ancient form of Mass that has served the Church and the world well for nearly twenty centuries. Let’s put aside “centristian’s” somewhat bizarre musings and think about this logically for a moment.
Do these people in Rome not know of the famous aphorism which states that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? Have they not yet learned the sad lesson of their last attempt at tampering…the miserable banality known as the Novus Ordo? The seminaries and convents are empty, the churches are being sold and turned into upscale restaurants, mediocrity in the priesthood has become the norm, silliness has replaced reverence, etc., etc., etc. Are they unaware of these things? They now are sort of grudgingly admitting that their New Mass has been a catastrophic failure, so they get back into their committee meetings and come up with a New New Mass, or New Mass, Part II, or Son of New Mass, whatever. Perish the thought that they might recall that the ancient Rite grew SLOWLY, over centuries, with only the slightest changes. No, this does not occur to a mind so sunk in its own arrogance that it imagines that a few months deliberation can suddenly create a more perfect Mass. Does anyone else see the absurdity of this?
And now a Church that cannot even successfully rid itself of a homosexual infestation is going to tamper with a Rite which in all its essentials goes back to the time of Christ! One does have to admire such brazen blindness.
Your Eminence: if you want to tamper with the traditional, ancient Rite Mass, that has produced and nourished saints for 2,000 years, may I suggest that you restore it to its pre-1962 version? If you can’t do that, Your Eminence, kindly keep your hands off of it. Tamper all you want with your failed Novus Ordo. But leave the historical mass alone. We faithful are just sick and tired of what some of you people have done to the Church. And if you are surprised and scandalized that I am disgusted with what the modernists have wrought, then just look around you.
St. Catherine Laboure, Leyland , UK – Fr. Simon Henry creating an orthodox parish catering for both EF and OF – in relation to Missalettes, for the new OF translation, has provided Vernacular and Latin side-by-side, just like the old Missals.
Boiling down two excellent but lengthy comments:
Centristian @ 31 January 2012 at 9:06 pm
If it’s broke, then fix it now, not later.
schmenz @ 1 February 2012 at 10:22 am
If it’s not broke, then don’t fix it, now or ever.
schmenz You said….. In any case, one has to sit back and admire the arrogance of some in the Church who believe that they and their hand-picked cohorts can “improve” an ancient form of Mass that has served the Church and the world well for nearly twenty centuries….. 20 centuries, really??? These kinds of statements make it difficult for me to believe the claims of traditionalists. That 20 century evolved quite a bit for the first 15 centuries. If I knew the century that communion was taken away from infants I would state it here but unfortunately I don’t know.
The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which was afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent. According to its provisions children may not be admitted to the Blessed Eucharist until they have attained to years of discretion, but when this period is reached then they are bound to receive this sacrament. This is from the catholic encyclopedia. This is from the catholic encyclopedia. Apparently it was the 13th century. There is more of this that I didn’t post for the sake of brevity. Stuff changes, I guess
The communication of infants is a disciplinary matter than does not touch on the actual ritual of the Roman Rite.
The traditional Roman Rite has been substantially in existance since at least the time of St. Gregory the Great, and it is probably much older as nothing in St. Gregory’s time would suggest he created a liturgy out of thin air. The same could be said about the ancient Eastern Rites, though they are probably actually younger than the Roman Rite. Either way, the traditional forms of all of them come down to us from the time of the Fathers.
I think if I read schmenz correctly he is saying that no one had the gall (until 50 some years ago) to say that the liturgy that nourished the Church for centuries upon centuries was erroneous. They flew in the face of Pius XII who said our current liturgical forms (in 1947) were the result of guidance by the Holy Spirit and those stray from the right path who wish to “go back” and change things according to their vain theories of what the “Early Church” (something that is impossible for anyone to know) did, especially when these movements were inspired by revolutionary theologizing.
The Church has changed the liturgy before, for good and for ill but the changes were very slight and often were not even exclusive. I think of one example, the original 1570 Missal had codified the practice of giving a triple blessing at the end of Mass by regular priests. This was later changed, but the triple blessing is preserved in for the use of bishops in the Pontificale. Same with some of the vestments. The prayers, readings and their positions have largely remained steady over the centuries usually with only additions being the changes.
The examples of imposing drastically divergent from the traditional, created liturgy in the Church have all been done at the behest of some interest group, often heretical.
Dear @Centristian: great post. (The first one. No offense against the second, though.)
I have two recommendations concerning your and dear @Ambrose Jnr’s plan:
1. Chesterton vividly protested against the idea that progress made meat immoral just yesterday and will quite probably make milk immoral too in the future. He was right. Temporary allowances are all right, but the final prospect of what is meant to be changed must be clear from the onset of any reform. Also, it must be clear at the onset of any reform that after this has been reached, the reform is safely ended.
2. In order not to scandalize men of good will (they are), I would prefer the allowance of standing hand-communion without fixed end date. But of course,
a) kneelers to their proper place, and that immediately,
b) and I’d also think of ordering all those bound to special obedience, that is, clergy (excluding celebrants of course, but not deacons), religious, altar servers, laypeople employed by the Church, and so on, to receive kneeling on the tongue.
c) the argument of the adult Christian not patronized etc. must be silenced, and the fact that there is a form of Communion called kneeling on the tongue, and that it is the norm and all else a dispensation, must be made general knowledge.
I’m confident that a)+c) and a proper number of people who start to kneel down will do all that is necessary to make it the norm even in short time. There are two Churches in my city with kneelers where some 70% kneel down including practically the whole youth, and another with the altar steps as semi-kneelers has some majority also.
dominic1955 I’ve been studying Archbishop Bugnini and I;m not unsympathetic to the suffering the reforms have caused. I go to daily mass in the OF and I’ve been to some really horrid masses. If these reforms were carried out outside of the context of a council of the church going back it seems to me would be an option. I see the council as a work of the Holy Spirit and therefore in my opinion going forward is the only way out of the woods. John Paul 2’s pontificate that lasted for nearly 3 decades to me is an indication that the Holy Spirit is at work in this council. All of this falls under the permissive will of God. It’s great fun to debate all of this stuff but in the end the Holy Spirit will prevail. Let us both give thanks to God for that. I’m prepared to accept whatever this pope and any future popes decree. It’s the catholic thing to do.
What does it matter that they were carried out in the context of a Council? No Council is God, just like no Pope is God, they both have the (negative) protection of the Holy Spirit which protects them from trying to promulgate or define formal error. This does not mean that everything they do outside of this rather narrow protection is perfect. We can look at numerous examples in which Popes and Councils did or approved things which were latter jettisoned as being mistaken.
Thus, this last liturgical reform is not a sacred cow that is beyond reproach. If some day it is completely and utterly abolished (like the Quinonez breviary, likewise previously given formal approval and approbation by the Church), I think it would be a good thing. I’m not holding my breath for this to happen any time in the near future though.
I definitely believe the Holy Spirit is working in the Church, but such work is not always obvious. The Council and what happened afterwards could also be a cleansing of the temple. What had been festering underneath has now erupted to the surface in the feigned “freedom” of the post-Conciliar age for all to see.
Centristan – Your suggestions are really good! I also see your point about the problems of having to acquire new missals to
many times. Still, moving the sign of peace remains vital, since it completely destroys the solemnity the
reading of the canon by the priest usually brings…
Schmenz – Centristan and I are discussing how to reform the novus ordo, not the vetus ordo. There is no
Eucharistic prayer 2 in the vetus ordo.
dominic1955 You said….The Council and what happened afterwards could also be a cleansing of the temple….. This is exactly what I think.
Bugnini had been behind most if not all changes in the Mass. I hear they used him because “he got things done.” There might be some truth to that as no one else has been able to do what he did. So if more reforms are coming or they want to merge the two forms, it will be most interesting to hear who will lead the effort.