"The Five Wounds of the Liturgical Mystical Body of Christ"

"The Five Wounds of the Liturgical Mystical Body of Christ"
"The Five Wounds of the Liturgical Mystical Body of Christ" according to Bishop Athanasius Schneider: 1. Mass versus populum. 2. Communion in the hand. 3. The Novus Ordo Offertory prayers. 4. Disappearance of Latin in the Ordinary Form. 5. Liturgical services of lector and acolyte by women and ministers in lay clothing.

Saturday, June 29, 2013



“The media gave a distorted picture of the Second Vatican Council.
 Now the real spirit of Vatican II needs to be examined.”

So Benedict XVI went down swinging in defence of his beloved Council. Quelle surprise! It was, after all, the culmination of his life's thought and work at the service of the Nouvelle Théologie.

In keeping with his "reputation [at the Council] for being a radical progressivist," as his Lutheran friend Oscar Cullmann fondly recalled, the suit-and-tie-wearing Father Ratzinger had been suspected of heresy by the Holy Office. He was even forced to rewrite a post-doctoral dissertation littered with his nouvelles propositions et ambiguïtés; neo-Modernist views which finally broke through in le verbiage pastoral of Vatican II that was to serve his stated purpose: "an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789." Finally, after benighted millennia, the light was dawning. But then, like every false utopian dawn since Eden, it all fell apart. Surfing the tidal wave of la Révolution catholique, rebellious clerics wiped out every fixed reference point of Catholic faith and life; their self-indulgent novelties crashing like giant breakers over the faithful and dumping the Body of Christ in a wild sea of endless "change" for change's sake.

Rather than take manful responsibility, the liberal vanguard ploughed on: defending the indefensible; blaming everybody but themselves for the cataclysmic fallout (which their Thomistic teachers, like Fr Garrigou-Lagrange, repeatedly forewarned). And so, on 16 February, finger-pointing to the bitter end, Comrade Benedict informed the priestly proles of Rome that

The world interpreted the Council through the eyes of the media instead of seeing the real Council of the Fathers and of faith ... The journalists’ interpretation of the Council is different, it is political... The Council was violently trivialised and it was seen outside the context of faith.

Au contraire ex-Holy Father: "the real Council" was quickly identified by intellectual giants like Dietrich von Hildebrand as a revolutionary instrument of the Nouveaux Théologiens. Fifty disastrous years on, only those with a stake in that anti-Thomistic revolt deny the fact; seeking easy scapegoats for their destructive handiwork. For all its wickedness, however, it was not the sinful media but the sins of vapid churchmen that "violently trivialised" an Ecumenical Council of the Church. Just as it was restless pride —the besetting Modernist sin — that put the Council "outside the context of faith" and tied it to the zeitgeist. And since the child of revolutionary pride (personified by Robespierre) is Terror, it was that spirit — radiating from pastoral ambiguities to incite the terrifying Cult of Novelty — which laid waste to the Western Church with the blessing of complacent shepherds.
"Seminaries were closed, convents were closed, liturgy trivialized…." Reeling off the carnage and delusional disclaimers in turn, Benedict insisted that "the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council." But not to worry. Despite “so much calamity, so many problems,really so much misery,” he assured his captive audience that “50 years later… the strength of the real Council has been revealed."

Well, insofar as the "real Council" is the Trojan Horse in the City of God exposed by von Hildebrand just two years after its conclusion, its subversive power "has been revealed" — prodigiously! Yet we are stymied. For if ex-Benedict remains in stubborn denial about that réalité révolutionnaire, so do his cardinalatial peers: the nouvelles-Mods & nouveaux-Cons casting their first papal ballots as we go to press. Ergo, regardless of their choice, fabricated renewal tailored to the fabricated era "inaugurated in 1789" will likely power on; until such time as it peters out and we end up back at the counter-revolutionary default setting for all genuine renewal and reform — Tradition organique.

Mercifully, prominent mainstream theologians, historians and intellectuals are attacking the contrived status quo as never before. This discontent will gather and grow until the Trojan Horse-cum-Elephant in the room can no longer be ignored, and Pope John's ill-advised, revolutionary Council is wound back and wound up.

Meanwhile, the ensuing articles — especially Dr Rao's historical reflections, and Dr Hickson's fresh approach to the milieu which surrounded and inordinately permeated the commencement of Vatican II — help to place our recent past, troubling present, and worrisome future, in Providential perspective.


First liturgical reform of Pope Francis

I borrow this short brief for It seems to me likely to be of interest to all metablogueurs:
First liturgical reform of Pope Francis:

It is dated May 1, it was enacted on June 19. Now, in the Eucharistic prayers 2, 3 and 4 will be marked as "St. Joseph the husband of Mary." Recall that in the Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 as in the traditional Roman Canon this mention already exists. It was added by Pope John XXIII, at the request of the Canadian Fathers of St. Joseph in Montreal, November 13, 1962, during the First Session of the Second Vatican Council. This is a subtle way to celebrate Vatican II! And show the continuity between Francis and Benedict, since the first issued a decision making study by the second.
We remember that the enthronement of Pope Francis had occurred on the day
 of St. Joseph (March 19) and we see that this document is dated May 1. Thus
we can say that the two feasts of St. Joseph are honored in this decision of June 19.
 Who is St. Joseph? I have already spoken on this blog March 19, 2011. The Pope
defined St Joseph on March 19 as "guardian" guardian of the Virgin, guardian of
the child, the guardian of the family of Christ which is the Church. Saint Joseph
is the conservative par excellence. Like all conservatives, he invents nothing, he
 does not create or procreate anything. But he takes care.  And when he must
 leave at night to escape the totalitarian rule of Herod, he is the one awoken. It
 seems to me that our Pope identifies quite well to a conservative saint. We can
say that he watches or takes care. This is a watchman at the head of the Church
 twenty-four hours on twenty-four.  Moreover, he does not claim to trigger
 a new Pentecost alone, such as his predecessors. He strives to do the best with
 what God has given him. And as it is a little Machiavellian (in the words of
 a former ambassador to Argentina), he seeks to pass for anything but conservative,
then that is what he is. For once, I feel some of you are already furbishing your
dialectical weapons knock me out. Pay Attention to what is called "conservative."
 It all depends on what you conserve.  He keeps  "the deposit" as St. Paul says to
 Timothy. He retains what he has received from the Lord, the grace, supernatural
 truth and the sacraments which are the effective signs. He does not preserve
 the venerable frills or a way of life that has its inevitable papal rites.  He
retains, by occupation and mission what makes us live - the Gospel
of life. His conservatism is revolutionary (as noted recently, we noted here).
I can not help thinking, with respect, that this revolutionary Christian
conservatism fits like a glove a Peronist he has not ceased to be. "The first
peronist pope in the world" proudly headlined the Argentine press four months
 ago. Well maybe that's what it means "a Peronist Pope" a conservative
 revolutionary. But back to that reform: This small addition is a new way to
 express in the liturgy the importance of the cult of saints ( in the venerable
 rite that I celebrate daily is full of famous celestial friends with two lists of
apostles and martyrs: it creates links to them by name every day.) It is also a
way in our confused times , to recall the importance of the family and that the
family is not based only on sex, which is why it is recalled that Joseph is "the
 husband of Mary." This is first and foremost a how to bring the two forms of
 the Roman rite, which will hopefully one day - not too far - be brought
 together as one form.  The idea of "reform of the reform" tends toward the
 ideal ... In this regard, let me take kindly Father Aulagnier which, in Item,
insists that the Institute of the Good Shepherd defends right to "belittle the
 Novus Ordo Missae". I do not know why Father Aulagnier expresses himself
 as if he were the Institute, he can think what he wants also, but I 
think myself that, whatever our rights, we, first of all,
as Catholics, have the duty to do everything possible to bring the new rite
 to the ancient rite. It seems to me that this small addition of St. Joseph
could mean the beginning of a reform of the reform, as it signaled the
beginning of the liturgical reform when John XXIII added to Canon in 1962.
John XXIII had dared touch the Canon, so we could change it, he thought, at
 the time. Well our revolutionary conservative pope dared touch the new guns,
 leaving intact the old to reconcile them. My opinion is that we did not finish
touching the Novus Ordo Missae: not to disparage but to better appreciate
 what Pope Benedict XVI called the "continuity" of the liturgical history Church.




....A few years ago, Bishop Rudolf Graber asked, "Where do the conciliar texts speak of communion in the hand, for example, or where do they enjoin the so-called altar facing the people (which is scant testimony to that `giving perfect glory to God' which the Liturgy Constitution says [in Par. 5] is the goal and purpose of worship)? The answer is: NOWHERE. This good bishop went on to mention a number of other things which fall into the same category: elimination of the subdiaconate and the four minor orders the monotonous enumeration of "Sundays in ordinary time" _ while the Protestants of course have retained the pre-Lenten season and the Sundays "after Trinity" <de facto> abandonment of Latin as liturgical language of the Western Church; elimination of the second imposition of hands during priestly ordination, and many others.....


Friday, June 28, 2013


"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh."

Matthew 18:6-7

"AND he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come. It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones."   

Luke 17:1-2

"Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,"

1 Timothy 4:1

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

The Eponymous Flower: St. Josemaria Escriva Didn't Want to Say New Mass

The Eponymous Flower: St. Josemaria Escriva Didn't Want to Say New Mass: Edit: a few Saints have profanity in their correspondence. St. Josemaria certainly does. Although this may scandalize some Opus Dei member...

Wounded in the house of them that loved Me - Vultus Christi

"The Erosion of Faith Several years ago, in the context of a course I was teaching, I suggested that the erosion of faith in the Most Holy Eucharist was, in fact, fostered by a number of liturgical and disciplinary changes: -- Minimalistic approach to the fast before Holy Communion. -- The offering of the Holy Sacrifice by the priest facing the congregation. -- The removal of the communion rail and obfuscation of the sanctuary as "the holy place." -- The relegation of the tabernacle to the side of the sanctuary. -- The reception of Holy Communion standing, and in the hand. -- The introduction of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Taken together, these changes sent a chilling message to the Catholic faithful (and even to confused clergy): "Folks, the Blessed Sacrament just isn't all that we thought it was."

Dom Mark Daniel Kirby

And they shall say to him: What are these wounds in the midst of your hands? And he shall say: With these I was wounded in the house of them that loved me. (Zechariah 13:6)WOUNDED IN THE HOUSE OF THEM THAT LOVE ME


 The secular media labors under the error that Catholicism "is something that should change with the times. For secularists (and modernists) there is no" divinely revealed truth ", which is unchangeable. They (the media) feel the responsibility to help the Church along in this endeavor (do get with the times). there are also many so-called Catholics who feel the same. This is why I think the media reacts so allergically to the SSPX (or traditional Catholics in general) in such a negative manner. Such Catholics who believe and pray as Catholics have always believed and prayed are not "with it". Who have not changed with the times and this is for secularists and modernists something which is totally unforgivable. 

Before the Second Vatican Council, the Church was simply viewed by church critics (both inside and especially outside the church) as being "reactionary" and "old fashioned". However, the difference back then was it was simply understood that Catholics were just that way... (and not much could be done about it) faithful Catholics (generally) believed and behaved very differently (earlier) than non-Catholics (one need only mention the contraceptive mentality or the attitude toward divorce)...."the World" simply knew that Catholics were " different ".  They stood out as being counter cultural. Although today it is true that, according to the teaching of the Church this "difference" is still taught and proclaimed, can  one really see a big difference between Catholics and non Catholics in their way of life?. I learned a phrase in Germany : "dont be so Catholic!" I 've understood the phrase as something negative used to describe the perceived "prudish" behavior of others. this really annoyed me. Unfortunately,  too often there is no big difference between Catholics and Protestants or unbelievers for that matter. Unfortunately, Catholics are not by and large "signs of contradiction" in the world and this is something that needs to be rectified. There are of course insular exceptions to this and those Catholics who seek to be that sign of contradiction are to be wholeheartedly supported and commended.

As Mother Angelica said so well, "A Christian is to be a "sign of contradiction"--a light on top of the mountain---a thorn in the side of the world. His entire life is a silent reproach to sinners, a beacon of hope to the oppressed, a ray of sunshine to the saddened, a source of encouragement to the destitute and a visible sign of the invisible reality of grace."  May God multiply there number...


ORIENS has invited Father John Parsons, priest in charge of St. Brigid's traditional mass parish in Canberra, to respond to the Adoremus proposal for a "reform of the reform". St Brigid's Parish is, for the time being, the only parish of its kind in Australia, and Father Parsons one of (so far) only two priests in this country whose traditional-mass apostolates have received full official recognition. About his reflections on the Adoremus project, Father Parsons writes:
"Those of us who celebrate or attend Mass every day in the traditional Roman Rite, value it as the pearl of great price which regulates the rest of our priorities. We believe that the changes in the liturgy called for by the Second Vatican Council have proved in the main undesirable, and that it would have been better for the church if the 1969 Missal had never seen the light of day. While not denying the basic orthodoxy or validity of Masses celebrated in the approved new forms, we find them unsatisfying and do not wish to attend them. On the other hand, we do not forget that there are millions of orthodox Catholics trying to worship God devoutly, whose only option for Mass is to attend an increasingly aberrant celebration under the Novus Ordo regime. Many of those people would rally to the traditional Mass if only a way could be found to familiarise them with it, and a door opened through which they could pass smoothly and easily back to the traditional ways whenever they are ready. The new movement called Adoremus could provide millions of people with a way to return to our authentic liturgical traditions. In my article I explain how the door could be opened."
*     *     *     *
After a full generation (1970-1995) of the new liturgical regime in the Latin rites of the Catholic Church, a movement has arisen among Catholics in the United States, calling for a "reform of the reform" begun by the introduction of the new Roman Calendar, Missal and Lectionary of 1969. The movement is called Adoremus, and is led by Father Joseph Fessio S.J. of Ignatius Press in California. He was initially inspired to found the movement by hearing an address given late in 1994 at Colorado Springs by Father Brian Harrison, a fellow Australian and an old friend. 

Earlier in 1994, Father Harrison had been in Australia and had discussed the idea of a reform of the reform with me and with Gary Scarrabelotti, co-founder of the Ecclesia Dei Society of Australia. All three of us had by then become very familiar with the traditional Mass of the Roman Rite, in its most recent typical edition of 1962. All three of us believed that the Second Vatican Council's decree on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, issued in December 1963, had been very imperfectly implemented. We agreed on almost everything in our discussion of matters liturgical, and certainly felt that the Consilium, or committee on the liturgy, which had claimed to implement the conciliar decree during the late 1960s, had been allowed to go far beyond the mandate for change laid down by the Council Fathers in 1963. The one point of disagreement between us was whether or not we were free as Catholics to conclude that the whole notion of an aggiornamento of the liturgy was misconceived. Gary and I held the view that since the Church as such, and any general council like Vatican II, was infallible only in its definitive teaching on matters of faith and morals, we were perfectly free to conclude that on pastoral, prudential and disciplinary matters, such as the reform of liturgical rites, a council might well have been barking up the wrong tree. Father Brian, on the other hand, felt that it was most unlikely, and perhaps impossible, that a general council would be permitted by Providence to call for a major liturgical reform when none in fact was needed.

I suspect that the three of us were representative of thoughts that millions of Catholics were, and are, mulling over in the 1990s. Whatever we felt about the wisdom of launching a reform in the first place, we were all agreed that something must be done to try to raise the low standard of worship that has become common under the successive evolutions of the 1969 regime.

Adoremus has so far been concerned with the broad aim of raising standards in liturgical celebration, and criticising the "reform" of the 1960s. When it comes to the more narrow task of defining its precise aims, it seems to me inevitable that there will be tensions within the movement as it tries to come to grips with the details of what it wants by way of a reform. Is it not doomed to fall into the trap that the Consilium failed to avoid in the 1960s? That is, can it escape the charge of eclecticism; of creating a new synthetic liturgy by picking and choosing on the basis of personal taste, populist aspiration or antiquarian revivalist opinion?
Although we may be able to agree that we do not like the way things stand at present, it is extraordinarily difficult to procure agreement about where things should go from here. Even if Adoremus is able to produce an agreed agenda for change, it is for the time being inconceivable that the Roman authorities will ban the kind of liturgical options and practices which they have sanctioned hitherto. And if they were to ban them, would not the cry go up that "Vatican II" was being betrayed; and would not the worst perpetrators of liturgical abuses then gain a certain legitimacy from the fact that they would also become defenders of official options sanctioned by the name of Paul VI? It should also be remembered that Roman authority does not count for nearly as much now as it did in the 1960s, and it is doubtful that any new papal fiat as sweeping as that issued in 1969 would actually be obeyed. Thus, even if Rome were to accept a future detailed Adoremus programme, it is hard to see how it could be anything more than another option added to the options already available.

It may well be, with the Church in its present condition, that the interests aligned against a reform of the reform are invincible, and that Adoremus, and articles like this present one in its support, are doomed to ineffectuality. Nonetheless, it would be a counsel of despair to let Fr Fessio's initiative pass without any response from those who wish it well. It deserves frank and constructive comment.

Frankly then, while welcoming the Adoremus initiative, I would suggest that its true future lies in broadening its vision yet further, and undertaking the great task of a campaign for the recreation of a new unified Roman Rite of Mass, which is what the Council Fathers thought they were voting for in 1963. The bishops at the Council never imagined that they were launching a process whereby the Mass rite that most of them had known all their lives would disappear. They thought, as they declared in their decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches, that all liturgical rites were of equal dignity and that they should all be preserved and fostered in the future.
The Council Fathers did not authorise the introduction of alternatives to the Roman Canon. They did not authorise the destruction of the immemorial Roman Lectionary. They did not authorise a recasting of the annual cycle of Sundays or any change to the extremely ancient Sunday collects. They did not authorise a wholesale redistribution of saints days. They did not authorise the abandonment or alteration of over 80% of the orations (Collects, Secrets and Postcommunions) throughout the Missal. The truth is that they assumed automatically that the great Roman Rite as known to history would of course retain all its essentials, and continue to be the main form for the celebration of the Catholic Eucharist.

Adoremus is therefore attempting to be genuinely loyal to the Council Fathers' intentions when it takes their document, Sacrosanctum Concilium, as the fundamental reference point for any scheme of reform. What that decree presupposes is that the Missal of 1962 is the benchmark from which any change in the Roman Rite will commence. Thus, if we are to try to move towards a reform based on Sacrosanctum Concilium, it must be a reform drawn up around the continuing historic core that the Council Fathers took for granted, but which the Consilium subsequently abandoned. The division of Roman Rite Catholics into two groups, old and new, using incompatible Calendars, Lectionaries, Breviaries and Missals, is something the Council Fathers never envisaged or intended. If this division is to be overcome, and the conciliar decree implemented at last in a legitimate way, it will have to be by an interweaving of the new material with the historic Roman Rite. This is what should have been done in the late 1960s.

It is not such a difficult task. On the one hand, as post-conciliar experience has shown, there are continuing, and indeed growing, numbers of Catholics who are strongly attached for a variety of reasons, to the historic Roman Rite as one of the priceless treasures of the Catholic liturgical and doctrinal heritage. They want it to survive not merely in library books, but as their normal form of worship, and as the chief liturgical support of their lives. On the other hand, there is no corresponding enthusiasm for the new rite as a rite. It is rather the new elements which the new rite embodies, that many people value highly. These are what the Council Fathers voted for. They include a streamlined Ordinary of the Mass, the optional use of the vernacular, a wider selection of Scripture readings, the trimming of saints days (as St Pius V trimmed them in 1568) and so on. It is these new elements in the rite, not the new rite as a rite, that orthodox Catholic supporters of the new liturgical regime are attracted to.
The way forward, considering the interests of the whole Church and not merely those of small groups of enthusiasts on either side, must therefore lie in bringing the new elements into an organic union with the historic rite.

It would be self defeating to try to combine this reform with an attempt to suppress the broad style of liturgical practice now in use, which Catholics have taken up in good faith and with the sanction of legitimate authority. Whatever one may wish the reform of the 1960s to have been, it was what it was. Facts are facts, and it is futile to pretend that we can behave as if we were all back in 1963 with a clean slate before us waiting to be written on. The immense labours of the reformers, although we may believe them misdirected, are not intrinsically worthless. Furthermore, any new set of committees which might be established to repeat their work is unlikely to generate a better outcome. It would in any case be undesirable to increase the confusion and loss of unity by drawing up a whole new reform from top to bottom which would stand parallel to the 1969 regime. On the other hand, if a unified rite is to be re-established, any absolute incompatibility between the old and the new material must be removed.

The following are the chief elements that would need to be considered in any reform:
The Temporal Cycle, especially Sundays with their orations and chants.
The Lectionary, especially the Sunday Epistles and Gospels.
The Eucharistic Prayer, especially the role of the Roman Canon.
The Ordinary, especially the distinction between its older and newer parts.
The Sanctoral Cycle, especially any unhistorical elements.
Let us address these elements in turn, sketching in the briefest and baldest possible way how a reunified Roman Rite could be created by "calling in the Old World to redress the balance of the New"!

Temportal Cycle
Since the Council did not authorise a recasting of the annual cycle of Sundays or any change to the ancient Sunday collects, "Ordinary Time", a dreary concept, should be abolished and the Sundays after the Epiphany, Septuagesima and after Pentecost should be restored. The annual cycle of orations and chants of the 1969 Missal, slightly amended to fit the amended Sunday cycle, should stand on an equal footing with the traditional texts.

Since the Council did not authorise the destruction of the immemorial Roman Lectionary, its Sunday epistles and gospels which date from an unknown time well prior to the seventh century should be declared the Sunday readings of year A, and supplemented by an Old Testament reading. Complementary years B and C should be formed by a reworking of the 1969 material. As is already the case for the Sundays of Lent in the 1969 Missal, a rubric should be inserted stating that the readings of year A may be used in any year. All the Old Testament readings should be optional. Old and new lectionaries would be thus perfectly married.

Eucharistic Prayer
The Council did not authorise the introduction of alternatives to the Roman Canon, but any attempt to ban those printed in the 1969 Missal would simply be ignored. The Eucharistic Prayers should therefore stay as they are in the 1969 Missal, except that the Roman Canon should be restored word for word to its traditional form. The rubric at the beginning of section 91 of the 1969 Ordo Missae should be removed. It asserts that the words of consecration demand of their nature to be said aloud, and thus incurs the solemn anathema of the Council of Trent (Cf Denzinger 1759). It should be licit to say the Roman Canon in silence.

The Council said that the rite of Mass should be simplified, and that parts which were in the passage of time duplicated or added with little advantage, should be omitted. In the Ordinary, these words, if construed in their widest sense, are applicable to all the celebrant's private prayers, which are of Carolingian and mediaeval origin. These include: everything prior to the Introit, all that the celebrant says silently thereafter (apart from the Secret, Canon and Libera Nos), and everything after "Ite Missa est"(the point at which older Ordinaries, like that of the Carthusians, end). These private prayers should be optionalized en bloc, all to be said or all to be omitted. This would satisfy those who want a very streamlined Ordinary, but would at the same time be ultra traditional. This optionally simplified Ordinary should replace that of 1969, which is a hybrid and historically unintelligible creation.

Sanctoral cycle
The Council did not authorise a wholesale redistribution of saints' days. The removal of many saints from their traditional days to the day nearest the date of their death, was pedantic and vexatious. The traditional dates should be restored, with both old and new orations being available for use. Some people feel however that saints of whom nothing is certainly known, like Venantius or Martina, hardly warrant a mandatory feast. Some people also feel that the sanctoral cycle is overcrowded. There is a simple, non-revolutionary way to accommodate their views. A rubric in the 1962 Missal allows any commemoration to be celebrated ad libitum as a third class feast; a parallel rubric should be added allowing any third class feast to be celebrated merely as a commemoration. Perhaps the historically unknown saints should just be left in the Martyrology, with the option of celebrating a votive Mass in their honour on the day in question. The elimination of unhistorical feasts, and the reduction of all feasts below the rank of double major (that is, the vast majority) to the rank of a commemoration, was proposed by Benedict XIV's reform commission as long ago as the 1740s.

A single Roman Rite
There are of course other questions which would need to be addressed, including the Holy Week liturgy. I propose this scheme merely as a general framework. Nonetheless, a reform of the reform along these lines would mean that a single Roman Rite would be recreated, which could be celebrated from a single unified set of liturgical books. The whole could be celebrated either in Latin or the vernacular, the English translation also being in many places revised. All Catholics would thus be accommodated, from those who wished to continue using traditional forms, to those who wanted quite sweeping changes. Both the letter and the spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium would have been respected to a much greater extent than they were in the reform presided over by Archbishop Bugnini.
With the barriers between the old and new rites thus removed, future generations could move peacefully and without disruption to whichever point they wished along the spectrum of a Roman Rite, reformed "in accordance, with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council."
 Return to Reforming the Reform
 Return to Oriens home page

“if we have no love for tradition, we cannot call ourselves Catholics”.  

Servant of God Fr. Tomáš Týn OP May 3, 1950 - January 1, 1990

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

40 years Novus ordo missae

Liturgical reform per insert sheet

by Francis Norbert Ottobeck
2 4 2009

Bishop Otto Spülbeck (1907 - 1970) was not only a theologian, but also a long-standing member of the regular Concilium for liturgical reform. His views on what the reform would, and should accomplish, have weight and are to be taken as an authoritative interpretation - in contrast to the ideas of spin doctors such as Emil Lengeling. Unfortunately, Spülbeck because of the political conditions in a divided Germany it was not possible to bring his ideas (regarding the liturgical reform) to the West sufficiently, here (in the West of Germany) there reigned the hermeneutics of rupture.

Spülbeck Bishop of Meissen in Eastern Germany

The Bishop of Meissen, Otto Spülbeck, was a theologian and renowned liturgist. He summarized the effects of the new Mass, according to the Ordo of 1969 in a few sentences in a small insert sheet for the German prayer book. By the way, the liturgical reform in the "Eastern Zone", thanks to the gracious providence of God did not have to suffer through or hardly caused any grief by a Würzburg Synod. There was of course admittedly also no boycott agitation in 68/73, of a thousand million years "era of Teilhard," of an ever ready neighborly apparatus referred to as a "church service." The world moves, the liturgy indeed does too, but its service remains essentially a "countercyclical" act, looking heavenward.

So what are in the instructions from the then Bishop of Meissen with imprimatur of 8 January 1970?:

 "The structure of the Mass remains essentially unchanged. The new order of Mass brings to the faithful a few changes, namely at the beginning of the Mass and during the Communion part after the Our Father." Then the opening of the Mass is presented and the penitential rite with the three possible forms that both the 1970, as well as the amended  2002 have retained. Then follows Bishop Spülbeck's remark: "The further course of the Mass brings no change for the faithful up to the Lord's Prayer." Then the Communion part is displayed with the new texts, in particular: "All pray with the priest again: Lord, I am not worthy ..." This short explanation sheet relating to the Novus Ordo Missae concludes with the words ". Besides the prayer of the faithful ... there are a few solemn blessing formulas foreseen in the coming Missal"

That's it. A Revolution? Not in the doctrine, at best in appearance, and there was no doubt "designed" to be  strong, by way of the informal Missal after 1970. The "break" or "rupture" therefore was not in the texts, but in practice, and almost exactly 1964/65; Joseph Ratzinger remarked about this already in Bamberg in 1966. Nevertheless, it is natural to simply say: Even the "new Mass" is Tridentine. It's order is in conformity with the decrees of Trent, because the decrees of Vatican II have all strictly followed the preceeding councils.  It orders the liturgical material admittedly anew, mostly with success. The so-called "council majority" (as if the law indeed for "all" is true, not only for Bolsheviks?) the "red-chartreuse" are still annoyed today that the Pope and Cardinals Ottaviani and Cicognani and Pericle Felici have "forced"  the council to do so. Not even the utilization of Trent, that the proper minister of the Anointing of the Sick is the priest, was overturned by "the majority". The "Rahner School of thought" (or only Herder's national spirit?) It was sometimes a little shaken, because an example an old decree should fall. But it stands as the world turns.

One may make liturgical "rupture" in the life of the Church but do not paint over it with too cheap a paint. The Apostolic Constitution "Missale Romanum" of 3 April 1969 notes in the closing formula that everything was lifted, which prevents the new order for the holy Mass entry into force. The diocesan despot debit-to-be aka "Mussinghoff" used this in 2007 as a Molotov cocktail against "Summorum Pontificum". The "ban" was there so to speak. "There is still a need for clarification!" However, the Curia diplomat  of Montini (Paul VI) was a better canonist. Who sought From the very beginning with a limited, not without conflict discontinuity He stopped just short of an outright doctrinal ban ordered by the council ( probably deliberately.)  With all obstacles for the New order of Mass out of scope but the old Mass is deliberately suppressed in a only disciplinary way, but not "abolished". This is Roman school which preaches "Affective Theology" but anti-Roman Campy ideology from cloudy forests mean by that, it will never ever get it. Disciplining then in the light of the subsequent conflicts in some areas hard "doctrinaire trains" move on. That was the law for measuring the Constitution of 1969 but not be intended to prove the wording.

Paul VI. emphasizes the continuity. But a portion of the sequence could not make him understand his friend Jean Guitton. The fear of schism prevailed. The philosopher who was mediator in the dispute over St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (Paris), who from the perspective of Lefebvre, a crypto-modernist sui generis, but a friend of the "old Mass" (and politically "arch-conservative"), nor the 1986 the French bishops who went into the courts: "Silence sur l'essentiel" he accused the progressivism, mainly for silence. But the same could be on 23 July 1976 in OSSERVATORE ROMANO speaking as a layman to the problem of "The Mass", as a precursor of Dr. Charlier, Mosebach, Spaemann and "last but least," also myself. Clearly, as Spülbeck confirmed: The new Mass is as real as the old one. But: "this is because I am sure that the so called ban on the Mass of St Pius V is a temporary ban." he was convinced that those prohibiting named after Pius V liturgy that maybe imposed itself in a period of transition, remains tentative. Dixit. Now we have the Salade tridentine, usus antiquior.

Sunday, June 23, 2013



Saturday, June 22, 2013

Lefebvre: The current Pope is the pastor of the universal Church

At the turn of the XIX th and XX th centuries, historians 
were wont to speak of "Two Frances." There was
 Catholic France, royalist and ultramontane on the 
one side and Republican France, anti-clerical and
 lay on the other. To say which of these two
 "Frances" we recognize is nota great mystery ...
It was for these authors to distinguish trends or rather 
the idea of movement, not to differentiate clearly defined 
structural entities. So, it would be absurd and it would
 even be a fallacy to suggest that the current president 
governs a country other than France under the pretext
 that it would be at the head of the secular France 
excluding the Catholic France.

To better help us in understanding the situation of 
the Church, Archbishop Lefebvre made a statement
 a very clear distinction between two tendencies in the Church: 
Eternal Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith on the one hand and the Rome
 of neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies on the other. But we would 
use the same fallacy if it were found that distinction that the Pope is simply 
the leader of the conciliar Church,but not of the Catholic Church. 
It also leads to a situation where the Catholic Church would, in turn,
 be without a head. Which has a name: sedevacantism.

Several years after delivering his famous declaration of 1974, Archbishop Lefebvre, 
addressing his seminarians in Écône, criticized some misinterpreted words of his
 and reminded that the current pope, despite their deviations, are bishops of Rome,
 successors of Peter andpastors of the Catholic Church:

"I do not want to dramatize what is not dramatic, but I sometimes feel 
that there really is a way of interpreting things, even the things I tell myself
 here or things that are said by teachers or a Headmaster, in a way that is
 not always accurate, which is not always fair. God knows how many times
 I've had the opportunity to speak very clearly about what to think of the
 Pope, what to think of the Mass, assisting at the New Mass, how often 
I had the opportunity to talk about these things, but it seems that there 
is always some discussion of misunderstanding about these things. 
I know we are in a difficult, painful period. There is more authority, 
there is no government. The pope is not a heretic, but unfortunately
 lets heresy spread everywhere, by the favor given precisely
to this ecumenism and the atmosphere that makes you wonder 
if the faith in the Church, in the truth of the Catholic Church and
 the unity of the Catholic Church, is still entrenched in his mind
 and in his view. But, I do not think we can say that the Liberal
 popes we've had since Pope John XXIII are formal heretics. 
So I also think that we should always remember that it can not be
 any other pope than that on theseat of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. 
The Pope because he is the bishop of Rome. It is first bishop of Rome. 
Then, because he is the bishop of Rome, is the seat of Peter, he is the 
successor of Peter and then pastor of the universal Church. This is a 
very important fundamental for the Church. Even if the Pope would 
leave Rome one day, driven from Rome which was devastated by the enemy,
 well, he would still be the Bishop of Rome who is the successor of St. Peter,
 even in the diaspora, the same party, it is always that which is chosen
 by the Roman clergy, elected by the Roman clergy.
 And the Roman clergy, who are the Cardinals now, all of which have a title
 in Rome, as a parish. They are all priests of Rome. These are the priests 
of Rome who elected the Pope. Because he is the bishop of Rome he is pope. 
And that is why the Pope will always take solemn possession of the 
cathedral of his diocese, the Diocese of Rome in the Lateran,
 in a solemn manner. So we can not separate. "

(Conference seminarians of 10 January 1983)

Saturday, June 22, 2013

June 23
St. John Fisher was chancellor of Cambridge University and bishop of Rochester. In 1529, he opposed Henry VIII's divorce, but it was for his refusal to take the Oath of Supremacy-----by which Henry VIII placed himself at the head of the Church-----that he was beheaded, in 1535. With his friend Sir Thomas More, he was canonized four centuries later. 
Litany for the Church in Our Time
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, Divine Founder of the Church,
hear us.
Christ, Who didst warn of false prophets,
graciously hear us.
God, the Father of Heaven,
have mercy on us.
 God, the Son, Redeemer of the World,
have mercy on us.
God, the Holy Ghost,
have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, One God,
have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us.
St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, pray for us.
St. Michael, Defender in Battle, pray for us.
St. Peter, the Rock upon which Christ built His Church, pray for us.
St. Paul, Protector of the Faithful Remnant, pray for us.
St. Francis of Assist, Re-builder of the Church, pray for us.
St. Anthony, Hammer of Heretics, pray for us.
St. Pius V, Restorer of the beauty of the Sacred Liturgy, pray for us.
St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism, pray for us.
All ye Holy Angels and Archangels, pray that we may resist the snares of the Devil.
St. Catherine of Siena, pray that Christ's Vicar may oppose the spirit of the world.
St. John Fisher, pray that bishops may have the courage to combat heresy and irreverence.
St, Francis Xavier, pray that zeal for souls may be re-enkindled in the clergy.
St. Charles Borromeo, pray that seminaries may be protected from false teachings.
St. Vincent de Paul, pray that seminarians may return to a life of prayer and meditation.
St. Therese of the Child Jesus, pray that religious may rediscover their vocation of love and sacrifice.
St. Thomas More, pray that the laity may not succumb to the Great Apostasy.
St. Francis de Sales, pray that the Catholic press may again become a vehicle of Truth.
St. John Bosco, pray that our children may be protected from immoral and heretical instruction.
St. Pascal, pray that profound everence for the  Most Blessed Sacrament may be restored.
St. Dominic, pray that we may ever treasure the Holy Rosary.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, graciously hear us.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Christ, hear us.
Christ, graciously hear us.
Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God,
That we may be made worthy of the  promises of Christ.
Let Us Pray.
Jesus, our God, in these dark hours when Thy Mystical Body is undergoing its own Crucifixion, and when it would almost seem to be abandoned by God the Father, have mercy, we beg of Thee, on Thy suffering Church. Send down upon us the Divine Consoler, to enlighten our minds and strengthen our wills.
Thou, O Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived, have promised to be with Thy Church until the end of time. Give us a mighty Faith that we may not falter; help us to do Thy Holy Will always, especially during these hours of grief and uncertainty. May Thy Most Sacred Heart and the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of Thy Holy Mother be our sure refuge in time and in eternity. Amen.