Mr. Cricket (aka Andrea Grillo) has embraced the theory of The Big Lie. The “große Lüge” was coined by a certain 20th Austrian dictator and wielded by his propaganda minister. The idea is that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. You keep up the lie, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. Eventually, you push through people’s incredulity by your persistence until others begin to believe.
Alas for Mr. Cricket, he isn’t very convincing.
At Ad Vaticanum there is an account of his mendacious ravings. Here is a little bit of their report with my emphases and comments:
[…]
Grillo argues that treating liturgy simply as ceremony [This is exactly the position of many diocesan bishops and others who think that people only want more “cow bell”, i.e., incense, ad orientem, lace, Latin, servers in cassocks, bells, a certain style of vestment, etc. Hence, they should be perfectly content with the Novus Ordo dressed up in all those things. This is wrong of course, but they are too ignorant of the differences in the rites to know that.] allowed the question of the older Missal to be reduced to a question of what could or could not be permitted. “If the liturgy is not doctrine, but ceremony,” he wrote, “then it is easy to reduce it to a game of ‘concessions’, ‘privileges’, and ‘dispensations’.” [Liturgy is doctrine. But if you oppose the Vetus and Novus you have to hold that the goal of the reform was blatant discontinuity.]
Grillo’s argument directly challenges the understanding of the older Missal’s status. He states that the arrangement established after 2007 created a form of duality within the Roman Rite that could not be reconciled with his understanding of the liturgy as the common expression of the Church’s faith. [It was the expression during V2.]
[…]
“The old rite no longer exists since the approval of the New Ordo,” Grillo wrote. [HA! Die große Lüge!]
He then described its continued existence over the following decades as a deliberate revival for ideological purposes. “We ‘resurrected’ it for 50 years solely for ‘anti-conciliar’ purposes,” he wrote, adding that “many must ask forgiveness, for the distortions they imposed and the illusions they fostered”. [Slimly. 99% of people who desire the older Mass are uninterested in the Council. The 1960’s deliberations, oddly implemented, were time bound.]
He also rejected arguments that the older form could simply coexist alongside the reformed Missal as an alternative expression of the same Roman Rite. “The liturgy cannot be intrinsically contradictory if it is to be the source and summit of Christian life,” he wrote. [I suppose that if you don’t have a lot of intellectual flexibility, that could be the case.]
Grillo argued that the Church’s liturgy must instead function as a “common language of the entire Church”. [Except for…. the Eastern Churches… right? And maybe also Churches like Milan?] The post-conciliar Roman Missal, he said, should be understood as “the form common to all, where everyone finds their sensibility, in a differentiated way”.
His conclusion was that the liturgical reform must be understood not as an optional historical development but as part of the Church’s continuing identity. [Ever changing identity requires ever changing rites.] For Grillo, the attempt to preserve the older Roman Missal as a permanent alternative has instead become a rejection of that process. “The ecclesial learning we have needed for 60 years cannot cultivate nostalgia,” he wrote.
[…]
What a jackass.
I actually agree on his take that the older form cannot coexist with the newer rite. I used to believe they could, but the past few years has made it ever more so apparent that we’re not just talking about differences in rite, but a fundamental difference in religion altogether.
One treats the mass as a renewed sacrifice deserving of the utmost reverence, the other treats the mass as a casual communal meal. One preaches self-denial and the cross as intrinsically necessary for salvation. The other says one can serve both God and mammon by living a comfortable, worldly life without self-denial, have little to no personal relationship with God through prayer, and still be saved.
One says it’s Catholic through its traditions, actions, and conformity with the beliefs of the Saints throughout history. The other says it’s Catholic, yet its beliefs and actions are more aligned with Protestantism than its own tradition.
Vatican II explicitly give Gregorian Chant pride of place:
Musical Sacram:
50. In sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin:
(a) Gregorian chant, as proper to the Roman liturgy, should be given pride of place, other things being equal.[34] Its melodies, contained in the “typical” editions, should be used, to the extent that this is possible.
52. In order to preserve the heritage of sacred music and genuinely promote the new forms of sacred singing, “great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutes and schools,” especially in those higher institutes intended specially for this.[37] Above all, the study and practice of Gregorian chant is to be promoted, because, with its special characteristics, it is a basis of great importance for the development of sacred music.
So, certainly, if the Council recognized that the heritage of sacred music were important, which is an essential adjunct to the liturgy, it would be inconsistent to destroy the heritage of the liturgy, itself, so that article 52 could no longer be fulfilled. Indeed, the Council explicitly recognizes that some liturgies would be in Latin. How many bishops take the injunction in Traditionis Custodes to be an injunction against any Latin Mass, including the NO Latin, I wonder? Wouldn’t it be exquisite passive-aggressive behavior if every Church switched to the NO Latin!
The Chicken
What an absolute moron this guy is! Sorry, but people like him have some mental defect which doesn’t allow them to see beyond their own delusions. One thing he is is CERTAIN; the other thing he is is WRONG. I know many people like this. It must be something about how their brains are wired.
For a brief mad moment, I though you were talking about James Joseph Mulgrew whose stage name was Jimmy Cricket. He was an Irish comedian, a universally well-liked man who was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of St Gregory the Great for his charity work. He died just a few weeks ago on the 3rd of August. His son, Fr Frankie Mulgrew is a priest in England, at Salford Cathedral.
I’m not the type of person who thinks there is zero room for disagreement among reasonable people regarding Catholic liturgical thought. Thing is, the more I read Grillo, the more I think his understanding of liturgy isn’t even Catholic to begin with.
That’s not fair to donkeys. They are useful and do actual work.
Grillo said, “The liturgy cannot be intrinsically contradictory if it is to be the source and summit of Christian life.”
Wait a minute. I thought it was the EUCHARIST that is the source and summit of Christian life, not the liturgy. Or is he playing tricks with words, using EUCHARIST and LITURGY as synonyms, but confusing the origianl meaning of what is the source and summit?
This guy must be depending on the listener being a low information Catholic, who has heard some pope or somebody important say something or other is the source and summit of Christian life. Must be the liturgy.
NickD – exactly. Nail on the head. I suggest that no fewer than 60% of “Catholics” enrolled in NO parishes are religiously protestant, formed that way by the post conciliary relaxation on the sacred by the infiltrated ecclesial who are parading as “Father Kinsella” in modern Vestmants.
NavyVet – Yes, I’m there too.
TheCavalierHatherly – :-]
The Masked Chicken – VII’s documents proved to be the opening the camel puts it’s nose under the tent.
When do us real Catholics (as imperfect and sinful as we are) we acknowledge that most (not all) of the clergy in Rome from the top down have departed from Catholicism and have created a new…. (should I say it?)
I sense an increasingly urgent sense of desperation amongst people like this and similar-minded clergy lately. It has to be, at least in part, because the biological solution is marching ever onward and after all these years, they still can’t claim victory.
Andrea Grillo however does serve a purpose. He boldly unmasks the nature of the post-Catholic ideology to which he is addicted, unaware that every syllable of his confections merely confirms his unbelief. He inhabits a fantasy.
In and of itself he’s so ignorant and absurd he would be comical.
However, that he has, apparently, an influential voice inside the Vatican makes the entire thing sad and pathetic. And disheartening.
I, for one, am happy Grillo admits the two liturgies are contradictory. Because what I’d like to see next is for him to list those contradictions and explain why his choices on those are better. Plus also explain how something Catholic for centuries is no longer Catholic and how modernist, protestant ideas turned into something Catholic.
Grillo argues > Grillo has this opinion
Grillo’s argument directly challenges > Grillo does not like
He then described > He fancies
He also rejected arguments > He does not want to listen to arguments
His conclusion was > His starting point is
It’s good to see the Masked Chicken back again.
Of course Sacrosanctum Concilium was worded to make it seem as though the reforms would be fairly minor and in keeping with tradition, whereas the Modernists had big plans which were provided for in various loopholes built into the document.
In the background was an ongoing revolution that was simmering under the surface until V2 allowed it to come into the open in full force. Like prior revolutions such as the 18th Century French or the 20th Century Bolshevik or Chinese Cultural Revolution, it seeked to create a Utopia by putting Man and Humanism at the forefront. For the Church it meant deemphasizing those things that differentiated the Church from the rest of society, such as man’s fallen condition and the need for salvation. The traditional liturgy emphasizes these beliefs that the Church has always held both through the liturgy itself as well as the practices that go along with it, such as fasting and abstinence, pious practices, rosaries, processions, Ember Days, and so on. It is seen as a counter revolutionary movement and therefore must be destroyed.
I remember reading that either James Monroe or James Madison about 30 years after the US constitution was ratified stated that every at the convention knew what was meant by each of the bill of rights amendments. We don’t seem to agree on their meaning today, though some justices of the Supreme Court state original intent or something like that, while others say literal meaning. Be that as it may, I think something like that must be going on with Vatican II documents.
Take the quotation from The Masked Chicken’s comment:
“(a) Gregorian chant, as proper to the Roman liturgy, should be given pride of place, other things being equal.[34] Its melodies, contained in the “typical” editions, should be used, to the extent that this is possible.”
But, perhaps, other things are not equal, and perhaps it is not possible to use the melodies from the typical editions. In practice we have had it if we rely on the VII documents unless we have a hierarchy that, like Clarence Thomas regarding the US constitution, thinks things should be decided on the basis of the original intention. But as I have just demonstrated, a dishonest or misleading commentator can say “others things are not equal” is the original intention, even though everyone knows he is speaking with a forked tongue.
I would think Grillo’s arguments about liturgy amount to an admission of the intention to change doctrine in practice, at least by the implementers, and the rub now is there is a stubborn minority who refuses to go along with the implementations of the Council’s reforms in such a way that effectively changes doctrine by not putting doctrine into practice, and instead, practices other heretical doctrines, even while the doctrine written in books itself remains unchanged.
Is it fair to ask Mr. Grillo, “Which form of the Ordo of Paul VI is the unique expression of the Roman Rite?” Is it the one which is celebrated ad orientem, in Latin, with Gregorian chant, altar boys, and a communion rail, or the one in which none of this is permitted. Since it’s the Mass of the Council,……
@ProfessorCover
Have you ever read the little book by Michael Davies called “Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II”? He makes the exact point you’re making. Multiple times these types of ambiguous phrases were inserted in order to be exploited after the Council was over.
So the periti liturgici told The Council that the Mass required changes, and that their “scholarship” had identified which elements needed to be eliminated or revived to comport with the primitive Christian liturgy; but also that regional or cultural “inculturation” was necessary to make the Mass more “relevant”. They agreed that Latin and Chant would be retained, and that there would be “no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them”. Every change, they told us, was desired by the Faithful; even as these “desires” always corresponded with their own pet theories.
Afterward we were told that each novelty was required by The Council: Mass facing the people, destruction of sanctuaries, Communion received standing, from a laic, in the hand… The Traditional Mass was forbidden and even the very use of Latin was prohibited!
The indult was temporary and only applied to those old enough to be “nostalgic” for the Old Mass… Pope Benedict isn’t qualified to make decisions on the liturgy… Summorum Pontificum was only intendedto apply to SSPX’ers… and it doesn’t apply to young people… and neither St. John Paul nor Benedict intended the TLM to actually, like, become more popular.
Lies… “große Lüge”… “terminological inexactitudes” (as Churchill sometimes said)… call them what we will, this has been a consistent pattern throughout the entire Liturgical Re-form and – as far as The Archlaic is concerned – Andrea Gorillo’s theories and diatribes are just the latest in a long line. Frankly, I wouldn’t believe anything he says; not even a restaurant recommendation (the man looks dyspeptic)
The passage The Masked Chicken quotes and Professor Cover discusses had me wondering about “the ‘typical’ editions” – would that, for example include Ott’s Offertoriale? – I’ve seen hand-Missals from the 1950s with Offertorium and Communio verses included – are they ‘typical-adjacent’ or ‘-indebted’? And “as far as possible” and “other things being equal” – what of things now being different and there being more possibilities now that so many manuscripts used by the Solesmes editors – and Ott – have been photographed and the photos made accessible, and software developed allowing easy reproduction and emendation of Gregorian notation – and earlier neumes, so that (so to say) a more ‘mediaeval’ situation is possible on a local level (trying alternate manuscript readings, etc.)?