Friday, January 30, 2015

Happy Anniversary!

I don't know about you but I hate doing things last minute.

So here's a Fr D Heads Up for all our friends - we all know their names by now! - on the far right nut job Catholic anti-Pope Francis blogs and their foul-mouthed trolling disciples who visit us regularly (do they kiss their first class relics of the Sacred Prepuce with those lips???)


LATE-BREAKING NEWS from tonight's (in Rome) edition of tomorrow's Osservatore Romano:

POPE FRANCIS TO REMEMBER
INAUGURATION
OF
NEW LITURGICAL NORMS
OF
VATICAN II

On March 7, at 6:00 P.M., our Holy Father Pope Francis will celebrate Mass at the Roman parish of All Saints on the Via Appia Nuova, the same parish where, on that exact date 50 years ago, Blessed Pope Paul VI celebrated Mass in the vernacular and facing the people for the first time.

Mass Facing the People: Probably just a passing fad .. . . 

Knowing our Jesuit Pope, I'm pretty sure this is just a coincidence.

But maybe not. After all, we all remember how last July 7, he celebrated the Tridentine Mass to commemorate the anniversary of the promulgation of Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

But this should give RetRorate's Bag o' Bitter Onions & Co, "the admirable Father Zed," and CUNNIWICKE'S Coven plenty of time to get their all-male scholas and all-male servers ready, as Father Z admonished us back in those long-ago days of Fanon Fever, "Where Peter Goes, We Follow!" Unless we don't like the particular Successor of Peter or where he's leading us - you know those Krazy Kafeteria Katholics!

(Meanwhile, you ladies - and properly habited nuns - can starch Father's appareled amice and iron your chapel veils).


October 4, 1965
Pope Paul VI celebrates Mass "versus populum" in Yankee Stadium

Number 1 on Billboard's Hot 100, March 7, 1965

63 comments:

  1. I'm surprised you don't have a spittle flecked nutty Paul VI is celebrating on an altar facing six candles and a crucifix, and not on a bare table...and is that lace I see!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 3:24 . . . nah, no problem here, because the lace disappeared (well, except amongst the flamboyant antiquarians) and now so too pretty much as the ridiculous "Benedictine arrangement" of the candelabra "iconostasis". Imagine trying to make atonement for your clerical careerism by disavowing the perfectly good theology of the ecumenical council you once used to advance your career . . .

      Delete
    2. Vatican II never mandated ad populum, only that freestanding altars be built so that Mass could be celebrated toward the people. In fact the rubrics presuppose the priest is facing east, since he is instructed to turn toward the people at various points at the Mass. And no where does Vatican II mandate iconoclasm, the destruction of altar rails. “Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or allowed to deteriorate; for they are the ornaments of the house of God…”
      Benedict had the proper interpretation of Vatican II, not the false interpretation the "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd was able to impose on laity who trusted whatever Father told them and didn't think to read the documents for themselves. It should be interesting to see what's been done to the interior of this Church and if banal Haugen-Haas quality sentimental "Jesus is my boyfriend" pablum music is imposed on the liturgy 50 years on.

      Delete
    3. Anyone ever notice that people like anonymous at 5:23 always use the EXACT SAME WORDING for their cliches and tropes around "Vatican II didn't say that"? It's like they get a pamphlet--"here's some shopworn phrases to repeat ad nauseam. They don't explain why 99 percent of the church went along with this supposed betrayal, but use them anyway. Also, no fags, unless they're our fags."

      Delete
    4. Anonymous at 9:17, Anonymous at 5:23 says why most Catholics went along, during the time around Vatican II, Catholics held priests in reverence and tended to go along with what their priests said, if the priest said Vatican II said this (even if it said that), most Catholics would take it on faith that the priest knew, and wouldn't ask for a citation or take a look at the documents themselves, such was the Catholic culture of the time. Ironically, the types who called for lay empowerment now have to contend with lay people empowered enough to look at the documents and question whether they were told the truth about what Vatican II actually said.

      Delete
  2. Father D, I think Blessed Pope Paul VI was facing toward Jersey which is EAST of New York, therefore, AD ORIENTAL!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn auto correct. Should be ad orientem.

      Delete
    2. No, he was facing the Oriental. The guy who built the platform was Chi Fong and he was sitting up front. Therefore Paul, multi-tasking, was facing both the Oriental and ad Populum at the very same time!

      Delete
    3. NJ is West of NYC.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for posting this so early. I imagine that in several weeks the news will reach Lincoln, Nebraska, giving Bishop Conley plenty of time to write to his priests and suggest that for Lent they imitate Blessed Paul VI. Or maybe his attachment to former pontificates only goes back to the last one?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cunniwicke's Coven! Hahahaha! Oh my word she really does believe the Ordinariate nonsense is going to endure ad rei perpetuam memoriam! Poor Aidan Nichols. You read stuff like this from him: "But by the 1970s and 80s, when the ralliement of English Anglo-Catholics to the reformed Roman books took place – by coincidence, just at the time that the new liturgical collections, elements of which were Catholicism-compatible, were starting to become available in England, things looked very different elsewhere. The Anglican ‘continuing churches’ which, through the Traditional Anglican Communion, would form the lion’s share of potential entrants to the future Ordinariates overseas, had, by and large, already broken communion with mainstream Anglicanism in, for example, the United States and the former British Dominions in Canada and Australia. They took with them into exile the ‘English Missals’ or ‘Anglican Missals’ of the Catholic Revival, translated as these are into Cranmerian English and interpolated with some genuinely Cranmerian prayers, as well as versions of the Prayer Book (Scottish, American, or ‘colonial’) which did not cause the same degree of controversy among Catholic-minded Anglicans as had the 1662 book in England." And you realize how nutty the made-up Ordinariate liturgy really is. What do normal converts (not nut jobs like Hunnwicke) make of it all? No wonder Cardinal Bergoglio told the Anglican Bishop of Argentina that "the Ordinariate is completely unnecessary."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does it say about Bergoglio that he would rather people stay Anglican than join the Catholic Church? A future leader of the Church apologizing to an Anglican clergyman for people wanting to join his Church and saying the Church needs Anglicans to be Anglican. Does he think there's anything special about being Catholic?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 5.28. Bergoglio's remark was a refreshing statement of the obvious. The ordinariate was always for people who were neither Anglicans nor Catholics. It was conceived as a haven for people who had excluded themselves from the Anglican Communion (in the sense of sharing explicit communion with Canterbury) and ended up picking up some pretty odd characters from within (but only just) the FiF continuum.
      The basic point is that Cunniwicke and his ilk always had problems with ecclesial obedience. For all Cunniwicke's protestations at the many rites he has merrily stood up and led, he is a man with an obedience problem who ended up using foreign rites in his last CofE parish. He is not alone. I know of one priest who used the Novus Ordo and prayed for a parade of religious leaders before taking breath to whisper the name of the poor mitred soul who signed his license. He went to the ordinariate and has now passed off into some sort of post-ordinariate oblivion. Like Cunniwicke, he liked the idea of ecclesial obedience until he discovered it would end up costing him something.
      It would be interesting to find out how many of the ordinariate clergy have disappeared from active ranks in the last couple of years. I know a lot of the lay people who crossed over with their priests have had second thoughts, and many have returned.

      Delete
    3. I have misgivings about a religious leader who is not happy to have people join his religion, or feels the need to apologize when they do instead of welcoming them into the fold. I know he has to be somewhat diplomatic but implying converts to the religion you are a Cardinal in should have stayed in their former religion doesn't smell kosher to me.
      The Anglican Ordinariate people crossed over because of the reversal of traditional Christian teachings...if Francis continues his "God of surprises" shtick, I could see Ordinariate people thinking this isn't what we signed up for, we thought we were getting the rock of Peter and not sands that sway with the times. Being wobbly on perennial teachings didn't lead to massive growth for the Anglicans, and if Francis tries to change things, he risks losing the most devoted Catholic adherents while not picking up new people who will applaud his changes and then carry on as before. We hear all about some supposed Francis effect but I do not perceive people beating down doors to join the Catholic Church.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous @ 6:51, there is no way Fr. Hunnewick is any more disobedient than your average Novus Ordo parish priest, where you can find rubrics being ignored, moral teachings dissented from, or even things like the Resurrection being called into question. And let's say for sake of argument as a Catholic he did do something disobedient, how is his disobedience bad and the disobedience of liberal clergy good?

      Delete
  5. Proponents of the Novus Ordo: if the Novus Ordo Mass was so obviously superior than the Tridentine, why do you suppose Paul VI tried so hard to ban it under pain of disobedience? If the former use was obviously deficient, there would be no need to corral the sheep and impose the new, since they would be naturally gravitate to the new and improved. It calls to mind the New Coke debacle of the 80s, replacing the formula of something that has worked for as long as anyone can remember then banning it and replacing with something else. What's so bad about letting the two forms coexist? It's like some people in the Church are so threatened by the fact some people get more out of EF Mass than OF. I don't like the coercive, top-down, experts telling laity what they wanted that was inherent in the introduction of the New Mass.

    In fact, at the Church that Paul VI said the first Novus Ordo, there's a plaque reading: "His Holiness Paul VI, as the liturgical reform decreed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council was beginning, was pleased to celebrate in this church the first Mass in Italian, amid the excited exultation of an entire people…"
    Notwithstanding the party line account of this event, the plaque was vandalized twice, and the third plaque had to be placed above a statue where no one could reach it...this sentiment was hardly universal, and we see today in some places like New York City, only 15% of Catholics go to Mass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The New Springtime and renewal promised when Vatican II was promulgated did not come to pass. The Church is too proud to admit mistakes were made, as the institutional Church is so invested in their preferred narrative surrounding V2, which by objective metrics did not come to pass.

      Delete
    2. Hell, I'm not much of a conspiracy theory adherent BUT I am wondering whether or not the continuation of the New Springtime in the person of Pope John Paul I wasn't cut short by foul play against him.

      Delete
    3. Maybe the Third Secret of Fatima was about JPI not JPII. And then there is the question whether the Third Secret was completely revealed when Our Lady wanted it revealed by 1960 but John XXIII. There are speculations it concerned mass apostasy following a council and was quashed for obvious reasons.

      Delete
    4. Ratzinger/ Benedict was/is convinced that these Fatima 'predictions' were the innocent imaginings of tiny kids who were heavily influenced by the pious images in their prayer books, catechisms and their vivid imaginations.

      Relevant to this little meeting place, a bit like Honeywick-the-Gin-and-tonic old Oxbridge parsonic fart and his very good priest friend, the holy picture and trinket entrepreneur Lacy-the-25-yr-old-single-malt- Boy

      Delete
    5. "Proponents of the Novus Ordo" . . . do you mean the ORDINARY FORM of the Roman Liturgy? "Reformed by decree of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican and Promulgated by Pope Paul VI"? It REALLY just gets to you, doesn't it, that just as Saint Pius V in 1570 mandated the Mass as reformed by the Council of Trent, Blessed Paul VI did the same after Vatican II . . . good to see "Cafeteria Catholicism" is alive and well (well being used very loosely here) on the Catholic far right.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous at 8:40. It does not REALLY get to me that Novus Ordo Mass/the Ordinary Form exists. Does it REALLY get to you people can go to the Extraordinary Form/Tridentine Mass if they so choose? My problem isn't the Novus Ordo, my problem is the sloppy manner it is usually celebrated, with priests who ad lib/do their own thing, liturgical abuses, banal saccharine music, and dissenting/ambiguous teachings. In each of the other types of Mass the Church allows (EF, AO, Byzantine rite) stuff like this is not commonplace. Going to a Novus Ordo celebration is really a crap shoot unless you know the place and the priest that's offering it.

      Delete
    7. The third secret of Fatima? Why is it that Catholics will go to the end of the world for something weird, truly weird, like this, but you can't get them to go to the corner store, get a bible and figure out what their religion really is? Craziness.

      Delete
  6. The reformed liturgy better expresses a whole and entire theology of the Eucharist. It did away with the concept of focussing on a far off God who could only be pleased with an overly ritualistic sacrifice. Any fool can tell you that the pre Vatican II Church was a whitewashed sepulchre. Rampant clericalism, sexual abuse, a 'faith' that was dominated by outward displays of ritualism and a lack of knowledge of the person and teaching of Jesus Christ. Rote learning at its worst. Things take time. Does anyone imagine that after any council of the Church things magically became perfect? I am sure the recreationists over at Retro Gelati would be horrified at how the Eucharist was first celebrated. Clinging to the 'Mass of all time' is a fantasy. It's like trying to be supported by a hollow branch that once served its purpose but is now just dead. Better to focus on the living tree.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Before Vatican II, people knew what the Church taught, I'm sure more people knew the bread and wine turn into Christ's Body and Blood. Even more Lutherans than Catholics today believe in the Real Presence.
    And to link sex abuse with Pre-Vatican II, yes, I'm sure it's been there for centuries, but you have to look no further Law, Mahony, and Weakland to find examples of post-Vatican 2 sex abuse coverup.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Before VII, most people were more confident they knew what the Church taught, even though they were every bit as clueless as the great majority of them are now. If people were taught what Christianity was really about, heads would roll, and there'd be some explaining to do.

      Delete
  8. So he's going to commemorate the Mass of the Past 50 Years with a celebration of the Mass of the Past 50 Years. Something you can find by merely walking down the street to your average parish. Yawn. And from the looks of most people in the pews, it's a Mass appealing to those mostly aged 50+ years. So hooray for Vatican II, versus populum, faux-archaeological re-enactments of the early Church's liturgy, “now people really know what the Mass is all about”, and every other outdated 1960’s idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Mass of the Past 50 Years": do you mean the Roman Missal as reformed by the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican and Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI? That is, the ORDINARY FORM of the Roman Liturgy? To which we now have added as an Extraordinary Form the previous Mass that Paul VI thought he was abrogating by his Apostolic Constitution "Anything to the contrary notwithstanding"? That Mass?

      And don't look now at "most people in the pews" at your beloved TLM: at least in the places I've visited you can't imagine a weirder collection. At one school Mass during Lent, the kids belted out the old Faber hymn "O Come and Mourn With Me a While". Where every hymnal post-Holocaust had changed the second verse to "FOES," these kids sang the old words FULL-VOICE: "Have we no tears to shed for Him, Whom soldiers mock and JEWS deride." Oh yes . . . . lovely. For the link between Traditional Catholicism and anti-Semitism see

      http://churchhistorysurprise.blogspot.com/2015/01/0-0-1-1334-7605-washington-theological.html

      But not to worry . . . I'm sure next July 7, like Fr D says, Francis will celebrate the return of the abrogated Tridentine liturgy.

      YAWN.

      Delete
    2. Plenty of examples of ecumenical councils and popes decreeing things that have fallen into oblivion (Canon XX of Nicaea about kneeling on Sunday, for instance). History will decide what's valuable and what isn't in Vatican II. I think it's really sad that we focus so much on the changes to the minutiae of the rites, which ultimately are of lesser importance than, say, Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium, and the more theological components of Sacrosanctum Concilium -- the majority of which even the most hardcore SSPXer would agree with.

      From 1970 through 2007, there appeared many good theological and canonical reasons to say that the older Missal was not and *could not* be abrogated. A commission of cardinals in 1986 unanimously agreed. And Benedict XVI made that opinion pretty definitive in 2007. And he also made a good case that popes aren't absolute dictators who can do whatever they want to liturgy and doctrine.

      There are plenty of weird people who attend and celebrate both the 1970 and 1962. And so it always has been. The Church = Here Comes Everybody. And whether or not Francis celebrates whatever rite is irrelevant. Benedict XVI, the hero of Summorum Pontificum, never publicly did as Pope either.

      Nobody's stopping anybody from using the 1970 Missal. But one can't say the Tridentine liturgy is abrogated; that's false.

      Delete
    3. Yes, plenty of weird stuff with the 1970 crowd, see Sister New Age Pantsuit's Ennegram workshop in the parish bulletin.

      Delete
    4. The 2800 Bishops of the Second Vatican Council were in almost unanimous agreement with Paul VI that the Mass of Pius VI had served its purpose as an expression of the Counter Reformation and should be abrogated.

      Benedict was the indecisive one first disinterring the TLM against the expressed intentions of the Council Fathers then he canvassed the preposterous hybrid of the two forms to constitute a reformed Roman Rite. The spin doctors called this 'mutual enrichment.' It disappeared the moment Benedict resigned.

      The TLM will continue as a fad for a small group boutique-minded confused young folks who are really playing at their own form of New Age cultic ritualism, who have few social skills, who love to dress like Amish and prefer to be led by the authoritarian cult figure than to be assertive adults of independent thought.

      Delete
    5. So once again, the cult manipulator and dissembler, Lard Ass, is rallying his cohort to his favourite cash cow the TLM and that is what it is for him. He is an ideologue and an entrepreneur with no real commitment to the antiquarian abrogated TLM form. If it was right wing flies crawling up the wall, he'd be making money out of it. His latest slime cast from the wannabe Marine drill sergeant and inveterate prepper:

      "Form up and get organized. Find like-minded people. Put in your request for the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. Raise the money to help buy the stuff the parish will need. Make a plan. Find people. Execute!

      Get your ego and your own little personal interpretations and preferences out of the way. It is team-work time. If we don’t sacrifice individually, we will stay divided and we won’t achieve our objectives.

      The legislation is in place. Young priests and seminarians are eager to get into this.

      Give them something to do.

      As I have written before, Pope Benedict gave us, boys and girls, a beautiful new bicycle! He gave us a direction, encouragement, and a running push. Now, take off the damn training wheels and RIDE THE DAMN BIKE!"

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous 1/31/2015 5:12 PM: A reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium reveals nothing implying that the Mass of Pius V should be abrogated. As much as he wanted the older missal to be abrogated, Annibale Bugnini himself acknowledged it was not in his memoirs (cf. pp. 300-301 of The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975).

      If anything, the fact of those born after 1965-1970 coming to appreciate the old rite demonstrates that they are, indeed, "assertive adults of independent thought". People don't go to an old-rite Mass because someone tells them to. They go because they choose to - for whatever reason.

      But I don't understand: what's the problem? Why is it such an issue that people want to use the unreformed rite? If people want the 1970 rite, that's fine; if people want the older one, why is that an issue? There are already plenty of rites within the Church for anyone to choose from. I'm not seeing why this has to be a zero-sum game. It seems counter-productive anyway: the more you try to stamp it out, the more people will want it.

      Delete
    7. You're right about Sacrocanctum Concilium not authorising or even considering the abrogation of the Mass of Pius V. The Council didn't stop in 1965, the Magisterium of the 2800 bishops who were there, who debated the documents and wrote them also knew that they represented enormous compromises which they had to negotiate when they returned to their dioceses.
      One hugely significant decision they made quite consciously was introduce the vernacular Mass and later its full expression in the Mass of Paul VI. The vast majority of people embraced it. It is in possession and will never be supplanted.

      The TLM will eventually vanish when the fad driven self-confected antiquarians move on to the next fashion. Except for the occasional retrospective performances courtesy of eccentrics like Burke and opportunistic sycophants such as Zuhlsdorf (if there's still money in it) it will vanish sooner probably than later.

      Delete
    8. The TLM might vanish, and it might not. Nobody knows for certain. I am sure there were many people in 1970 who thought it was gone for good. But that isn't what happened. It remained in use (on a smaller basis) since then and on a larger scale since Summorum Pontificum.

      Delete
    9. Lay people's imput and spiritual needs are important...except when they clash with what the modernists want to impose.

      Delete
    10. What about the needs of people that want to see the Old Mass suppressed? People that assist at TLM are just SO SELFISH!

      Delete
    11. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.

      (The TLM is lawful, get over it)

      The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised (they were) carefully in the light of sound tradition (debatable), and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times (again, debatable).

      Delete
    12. Also, how necessary is also debatable.

      Delete
    13. The church does not *include everybody.* It mostly consists of people born into it. If you're not born into it, you have to run an obstacle course to get into the club and prove you have all the properties they want in their intruders, thank you.

      Delete
  9. Ad populum posture results in the temptation to turn Mass into "the priest show". The altar is between the priest and the between the people, kind of in a behind the counter/customer service sort of way. Whereas, ad orientem, the priests leads his people in prayer to God facing the same direction as those he is representing. We don't need to see the priest's face, and he doesn't need to look at an audience when he is praying to Almighty God. That is the purpose of the crucifix on the altar turned toward the priest in the picture of him offering Mass above. It would be nice more Ordinary Form Masses were offered ad orientem. Yes Vatican II provided for the possibility for Mass toward the people but ad orientem was not banned, and perhaps we should reassess the fruits of this practice 50 years on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're perfectly right: the TLM has nothing to do with the people; it's all about Father doing his private thing with God. While the people share a common roof with priest, they say the rosary while he mutters to himself in a language in its third death throes, does the Moon dance in brocade and bejewelled drapery, his hands thrashes around, bowing, nodding, twirling and sweeping amid clouds of smoke and a phalanx of little boys.

      The choreography and crass expressions of ritual slaughter are pretty much what happened in the rites of Mithra. You won't hear that from Lard Ass the grasping Entrepreneur.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, exactly... wasn't the choice to celebrate the Nativity of Jesus in December originally contrived to "compete" with Mithraism?

      Also, great imagery describing a Moon dance in brocade and bedazzled drapery... to think that these traddies demean contemporary liturgical dancing.

      Delete
  10. Oh yes, contemporary liturgical dance is just SO spiritual and not just something grafted upon the rite due to liturgists' boredom with Mass!

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is amazing at how many people claiming an attachment to the TLM post such similar comments. Does Angelus Press give you all the same talking points brochure?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's a set script for the Independent-thinking-challenged. Zuhlsdorf's fan club issues a booklet of predigested HooraH's, Amen, and verbal brown nosers.

      Delete
  12. Wait.. So the OF Mass didn't just suddenly drop into being in 1968 and actually came out of the reforms of the Vatican Council and was celebrated by the reigning pope while the Council was going on. Well I guess that puts an end to the whole what the Council really meant.

    And an interesting that given his ordination date, Father Bergoglio has never celebrated the EF Mass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OF Mass came into being 1970, 5 years after the close of the Council.

      Delete
    2. Yet Paul VI apparently celebrated something that looked suspciously like an OF Mass in 1965. I thought that Vatican II decreed everything in Latin, priest not facing people, and Gregorian chant.

      Delete
    3. The 2800 bishops of Vatican II chose the elements of reform most suitable to the needs of the twentieth century instead of those which flowed from the Counter Reformation.
      They effectively archived the Mass of Pius V. Benedict XVI broke with the practice of his predecessor Paul VI. It has been a monumental flop except for the needy few who crave 1570 after finding liturgical life from 1970 and onwards beyond them.

      Delete
    4. @1:14 the 1965 Missal is essentially the Tridentine Mass in English, much closer to what SC envisioned than the New Mass 5 years later, including options for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, which were Frankensteined out the New Mass.

      @1:40 If the Mass of Pius V is such a flop, why the need to denigrate it and the people who attend it as "the needy few who crave 1570"?

      Delete
    5. The proximate antecedent to 'flop' is Benedict's attempt to resurrect the TLM. He was and is discontinuous with the express will of Pope Paul VI and supported by the Magisterium of the Conciliar bishops whose will it was to archive the Mass of Pius V and to replace it exclusively with the vernacular form of the Roman Rite.
      As for the development of the dialogue Mass of 1965 to the full vernacular Mass with revised rubrics that is entirely within the authority of the Magisterium. The Tridentine Mass was almost totally the private ritual of the priest. It was privatised worship at its worst as Fr Ratizinger wrote in his Vat II diaries. It had to be set aside and this view was later expressly confirmed and validated by Pope JP II who declare that the vernacular Mass of Paul VI was in total accord with the wishes of the Council Fathers. He was one of them.

      Delete
    6. A sense of liturgical history would be helpful. The 'Missal of Pius V' was very similar to previous printed missals for the Roman rite but it was modified within a few years of the first printings. Clement VIII produced a new edition as did Urban VIII. Urban's edition lasted by far the longest with only the addition of a new feasts (a great many) until the time of Pius X when a radical re-ordering of the Roman Office was undertaken by a papally-appointed committee. Urban's missal became too difficult to adapt to Pius X's changes so a new edition of the missal was issued by Benedict XV. That lasted until Pius XII's changes abolishing most of the octaves etc - not to mention a new Holy Week - to be followed by more changes in 1960 and some further ones in the 1962 missal. That missal did not last long at all as from either Advent Sunday 1964 or Lent 1965 depending where one was the new order of Mass was observed with many simplifications. No one could, legally, use the 1962 rite then. This version of the Roman Mass was superseded by the 1967 rite which really did strip things down and allowed an all vernacular celebration. Then came three new Eucharistic Prayers in 1968, a further new Order of Mass in 1969 and a new plenary missal in 1970.

      Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution clearly abrogated the 1962 (and 1965 and 1967) rites as none of them - by definition as they were all contemporary rites - were protected by immemorial custom.

      As to Mass facing the people G.B. Montini had been doing that for decades before 1965 starting with his work with the Italian scout movement IIRC.

      Delete
    7. As for the renaissance of the TLM,

      "Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

      TLM communities have large families and many vocations, Novus Ordo ones contracepting, aborting and apostacizing themselves out of existence. How many Novus Ordo parishes have closed down? How many vocations does Novus Ordo inspire versus TLM? What are the fruits of the manner in which Novus Ordo is celebrated?

      Delete
    8. ".....Novus Ordo one contracepting, aborting and apostacizing themselves out of existence." ?
      Show the reader the detailed evidence you have for this assertion or are you just reading from the customary slanderous prepared script?
      Assertions without precise persuasive evidence don't make it to court, either civil or Church.

      Delete
    9. "TLM communities have large families and many vocations."

      Yes, large families with multiple members in (or who should be in) therapy. And what vocations: well-rounded, balanced, young men just filled with the Joy of the Gospel . . . NOT.

      Delete
    10. 4:52, next Novus Ordo you attend count the number of families with more than 2 kids, versus your nearest TLM.

      Delete
    11. 5:10 you're still wildly thrashing around in some sort of shadow boxing. Back up the assertion with hard evidence or smoulder in your resentment in your catacomb of choice.

      Delete
  13. http://liturgiae-causa.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/effeminacy-in-tlm.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People say TLM is effeminate because of priests and servers wearing lace, but can anyone make a case that Novus Ordo Mass is butch?

      Delete
    2. Yes, Ratzinger, Burke, Cordileone, Sample, Morlino and their favourite acolyte in Kevlar 'tactical' cassock, surplice and three cornered hat will vouch for the mucscularity of the NO. How butch a line up of concelebrants could you get?!

      Delete
  14. Trading in lace vestments for female EMHCs and "Jesus is my boyfriend" music does not make NO butch.

    ReplyDelete
  15. While Novus Ordo Catholics are in Ordinary Time, TLM Catholics are in Septuagesimatide! Sad people are fine with their liturgical heritage taken from them!

    ReplyDelete