Popes are wont to commemorate the anniversaries of significant documents with documents of their own.
Quadragesimo Anno by Pope Pius XI honored the ground-breaking social encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum. St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter, Vicesimus Quintus Annus, took account of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
However, Pope Francis, who does not shy away from celebrating his own writings, has not given even a nod to Sacrosanctum Concilium (hereafter, SC), promulgated by St. Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963, following a vote of 2147 to 4 by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. How is one to understand this silence on the first of the sixteen conciliar texts? Could it be that its program does not fit the liturgical thrust and narrative of the current pontificate. How so? Let us give this some thought.
SC’s holding the first place in the conciliar line-up revealed the priority the assembled bishops gave to sacred worship. In a 2012 General Audience, Pope Benedict XVI—a peritus at the Council—weighed in with these words:
That the Document on the Liturgy was the first document to be promulgated by the conciliar assembly was considered by some to have happened by chance. There is no doubt that what at first sight might seem a coincidence, also turned out to be the best decision, on the basis of the hierarchy of the subjects and of the most important duties of the Church. In fact, by starting with the theme of the “liturgy,” the Council shed very clear light on the primacy of God and his indisputable priority. God in the very first place: this itself explains to us the Council’s decision to start with the liturgy. Wherever the gaze on God is not conclusive, everything else loses its orientation. The fundamental criterion for the liturgy is its orientation to God, enabling us to take part in his action itself.
There was also a practical reason for its placement, namely, the intuition that there would be near-unanimity on this topic, an intuition proven accurate by the final vote (and, yes, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed on to it). The Constitution embodied a robust theology of the liturgy, building on the best of the liturgical movement of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, as well as the liturgical teachings and emphases of Popes Pius X and Pius XII.
I think it worth noting that, as often happens, the Far Left and the Far Right agree with each other much more often than either would like to admit. And that is on full display in their attitude toward SC, which both groups claim for a “hermeneutic of rupture.”
In this essay, I hope to show—by copious citations from the document itself, followed by my commentary—exactly what the Council Fathers decreed and, then, to demonstrate what they never envisioned but what has developed. For the record, I believe that the short-lived Ordo Missae of 1965 was probably most in sync with the program set forth in SC—and not the text that emerged from the heavy scalpel put to the pre-Vatican II Mass by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini’s Consilium, and surely not the many “developments” that followed the Missal of 1970.
Selections from Sacrosanctum Concilium, with commentary
11. Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.
14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.
“Active participation” has been the bugaboo of so many “liturgy wars.” “Participatio actuosa” has a long pedigree, decades before SC. From the magisterium of Pius X and Pius XII, as well as in SC forward, that term does not imply frenetic activity and presupposes a well-formed liturgical sense, grounded in a sound catechesis and healthy spirituality. I have argued for years that a better translation would be “actual” or “real” participation.
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Simply put: There is never a justification for any kind of “do-it-yourself” liturgies.
23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. . . . Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
This norm was roundly ignored by the Consilium charged with implementing SC—and their approach was, all too often, given carte blanche by Paul VI. What the Council Fathers decreed here is but an echo of the pastoral insight of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman penned while yet an Anglican: “Rites which the Church has appointed, and with reason,—for the Church’s authority is from Christ,—being long used, cannot be disused without harm to our souls.”1
29. Servers, lectors commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function. They ought, therefore, to discharge their office with the sincere piety and decorum demanded by so exalted a ministry and rightly expected of them by God’s people.
Notice that the Constitution speaks of laity performing a “liturgical function,” not a “ministry.” The Council was very cautious in restricting the use of the word “ministry” to the ordained. John Paul II followed the same trajectory, picking up on a concern voiced by the bishops at the synod on the laity, as he warned against “a too-indiscriminate use of the word ‘ministry’” in Christifideles Laici.2
34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.
“Noble simplicity” does not mean “ugly, cheap, or profane.”
35. That the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy:
1) In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.
This desideratum is subsequently made normative in n. 51 of the document, where we read:
The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.
This came to life in the lectionary of a three-year Sunday cycle and a two-year daily cycle of readings—probably the most successful of the reforms. Many forget or never knew that the Usus Antiquior had/has no cycle of readings for daily Mass, except for Lent (thus necessitating repetition of the Sunday readings) and a one-year cycle for Sundays (thus requiring the proclamation of the same Epistle and Gospel on the same Sunday every year).
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
Latin “is to be preserved”; a limited space is to be accorded the vernacular for “the readings” and “some of the prayers and chants.” Once more, this point is spelled out more directly in n. 54:
In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and ‘the common prayer,’ but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution. Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
Really? Would anyone know that from the on-the-ground experience of the past six decades?
53. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, “the common prayer” or “the prayer of the faithful.” By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world
The pattern for the Prayer of the Faithful—and its last vestige—in the Roman Rite is to be found in the extended petitions of the Good Friday liturgy. This prayer form remained present in all the Eastern liturgies and in that of the Anglican Use. Perhaps the biggest difficulty with this has been the extemporaneous or “creative” aspect of it as poorly conceived petitions are uttered, often of dubious theological and literary quality, suggesting the standardization of the Prayer of the Faithful as is, again, the case for the Eastern and Anglican rites.
55. The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.
The Council of Trent did not condemn reception of Holy Communion under both species; it condemned the position that reception under both forms was necessary. And so, this article of the Constitution opens up the possibility for a return to this practice in the Roman Rite under limited circumstances. Communion by intinction has been the immemorial practice of all the Eastern churches, that is, the Sacred Host dipped into the chalice and placed directly into the mouth of the communicant. That method is still envisioned in the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal but, unfortunately, rarely used.
57. 1. Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration. . . . Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper.
The expansion of concelebration was seen as a natural/organic development. In some instances, it has been overdone and, at times, in violation of the last point, that is, the right of a priest to celebrate individually. It is interesting that this practice rankles both the Far Left and the Far Right: The former, because it creates “male-dominated” liturgy; the latter, because of their predilection for so-called “private” Masses.
64. The catechumenate for adults, comprising several distinct steps, is to be restored and to be taken into use at the discretion of the local ordinary. By this means, the time of the catechumenate, which is intended as a period of suitable instruction, may be sanctified by sacred rites to be celebrated at successive intervals of time.
This restoration of an ancient order made eminently good sense, however, it got off to a decades-long very rocky start, at least in the United States, with very weak instruction and a terrible track-record of post-baptismal retention of converts. That situation seems to have improved in most dioceses.
116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.
But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.
The “pride of place” for Gregorian chant, like that for the organ, has been relegated to the dustbin of history in all too many places. The document’s small opening for other possibilities became a gaping hole, so that disedifying tunes with shallow (and even heretical) lyrics, accompanied by piano, tambourines, and drums became the reality.
125. The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they may be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise they may create confusion among the Christian people and foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy.
How many of my generation witnessed “the stripping of the altars” in a post-conciliar rage of iconoclasm not experienced since the Protestant Revolt—in contradiction to the reasonable norm stated here?
What Sacrosanctum Concilium did not say. . .
For months now, Pope Francis and Cardinal Arthur Roche have accused disaffected Catholics of “Backwardism” for their failure to appreciate the liturgy of Vatican II. I submit that, in point of fact, it is precisely the bastardization of the liturgy proposed by the Council Fathers that has caused the discontent.
In truth, if you have a problem with any or all of the following: Abandonment of Latin; Mass facing the people; the removal of altar rails; the banishment of the tabernacle to unknown precincts; Communion-in-the-hand; lay distributors of Holy Communion; female servers; standing to receive Holy Communion; Polka Masses, rock Masses, clown Masses. Yes, if your Catholic sensibilities—let alone your fundamental Catholic theological instincts—are offended by any of the above, know that you can claim support from none other than the definitive liturgical document of the twentieth century, produced by the last ecumenical council of the Universal Church.
Endnotes:
1“Ceremonies of the Church,” preached on 1 January 1831.
2Paragraph 23 of that document is very clear and worth citing very amply:
When necessity and expediency in the Church require it, the Pastors, according to established norms from universal law, can entrust to the lay faithful certain offices and roles that are connected to their pastoral ministry but do not require the character of Orders. . . . However, the exercise of such tasks does not make Pastors of the lay faithful: in fact, a person is not a minister simply in performing a task, but through sacramental ordination. . . .
Following the liturgical renewal promoted by the Council, the lay faithful themselves have acquired a more lively awareness of the tasks that they fulfill in the liturgical assembly and its preparation, and have become more widely disposed to fulfill them: the liturgical celebration, in fact, is a sacred action not simply of the clergy, but of the entire assembly. It is, therefore, natural that the tasks not proper to the ordained ministers be fulfilled by the lay faithful. In this way there is a natural transition from an effective involvement of the lay faithful in the liturgical action to that of announcing the word of God and pastoral care.
In the same Synod Assembly, however, a critical judgment was voiced along with these positive elements, about a too-indiscriminate use of the word “ministry”, the confusion and the equating of the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, the lack of observance of ecclesiastical laws and norms, the arbitrary interpretation of the concept of “supply”, the tendency towards a “clericalization” of the lay faithful and the risk of creating, in reality, an ecclesial structure of parallel service to that founded on the Sacrament of Orders.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Many years ago, I read an essay by C. S. Lewis in which I believe that he said, “Changes in the liturgy should occur at no faster rate than one word per year.”
Maybe something of an overstatement, but still, something to ponder. Of course its too late now.
Since my reception into the church of 1984, I have noted a noticeable shift in church order and practice here in the diocese of Rhode Island ( yes here in the center of political Eastern Liberalism). I am no longer aware of jazz and clown masses, tabernacles have been moved behind altars, statues and devotional lights are returning, beautiful organ masses are now common, homilies more scriptural, and greater reverence and devotion to the real presents in the eucharist is observed. The lay are getting more involved in doing their work in the world -ie. feeding the hungry ( our church ,for instance , is now providing 200 meals for the hungry every week) giving aide to neighbors in need, evangelizing the lost etc. I don’t know the reason for this most welcome shift, but perhaps EWTN has something to do with it. Also perhaps better seminary formation.what ever the reason, it is a breath of fresh air and a most welcomed state. May it continue!
Yes, the Usus Antiquior’s 1-year cycle of epistles and gospels does is repetitious. Yet the lavish opening of Bible treasures in the Novus Ordo 3-year cycle does not necessarily lead to ‘richer fare’ at the table. The Eucharist is the Eucharist, the Word is the Word, and both are ONE.
How often do penitents repeat the same sins? How often do priests offer the same words of advice, consolation, or absolution for the same sins? The same readings, repeated yearly, being the word of God, are our classic tradition and contain many levels of insight, of love, of ever-new and ever-deeper meaning. The Word of God’s Word is His Word. Repetition of the same Word provides a method to learn, to remember, to love.
The Bible may be read at home, may it not? Does anything prevent a homilist from supplementing his daily fare by quoting other Bible verses?
Finally, the new readings did not always include those of the old Missal. Some have noted that the old readings focused too much on sin, a very ‘bad’ concept, it seems, in these new and improved days.
Regarding #51 and the new 3/2 year Scriptural cycle for the Liturgy of the Word, it is worth reading Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s various commentaries on this. There are positives and negatives of the new prayer cycle. I find it ironic that “lectio divina” seems to be all the rage now (prayerful meditation and re-reading of the same Scriptural passages repeatedly) among the very same crowd that think it was a bad idea to reflect yearly on the same readings at Mass!
One disadvantage of the new cycle is that the three-lection Sunday Mass is too much for the congregation to absorb, so much of it is generally forgotten. Psychologically, people tend to remember the first and last item in a list of three or more. So the Epistle is almost never remembered. If you doubt that, do an experiment asking a random Mass-goer what the second reading said after Mass is over. Nine times out of ten, he won’t remember, even if he remembers the Gospel or (less commonly) the Old Testament reading. In pyschological jargon, the primacy effect and the recency effect.
Yes, primacy and recency…a cyclical orientation similar to the liturgical year…our end is our beginning…fitting and relevant concepts in our current of adventitious eschatological time.
To build on your example, imagine the effect if we tried to introduce new Christmas carols every year instead of sticking with the familiar ones we hear annually without changing them. Unfortunately, I can’t help wondering if some liturgists would actually think that’s actually not such a bad idea!
As in his most other writings Fr. Stravinskas in his opening paragraphs here displays his fundamental contempt for Pope Francis. The rest of his essay shows a frozen and fossilized view of Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) that results here in a basic misunderstanding of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II that is a hallmark of hard radical traditionalism that Fr. Stravinskas embraces and promotes. SC should be understood as a “keystone,” with both a history leading to it and other developments flowing from it. As a presbyter, Fr. Stravinskas should know that the “introductions” to all the rites as revised after Vatican II are important sources for theological, liturgical, and pastoral teaching on the contents of the revised rites. In addition, other magisterial documents on the liturgy since Vatican II continue to shed light on the SC’s liturgical vision. For example, the “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” (GIRM), Saint John Paul II’s encyclical “Ecclesia de Eucharistia” (2003), the Instruction of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, “Redemptionis Sacramentum” (2004), and the exhortations of Pope Benedict XVI “Sacramentum Caritatis” (2007), “Verbum Domini” (2010), and especially Pope Francis’ “Traditionis Custodes” (2021) rescinding Pope Benedict XVI’s “Summorum Pontificum” (2007) are examples of the ongoing authoritative teaching about the Sacred Liturgy and the celebration of the Eucharist, all in continuity with SC. I believe all hard radical traditionalist Catholics, like Fr. Stravinkas, will greatly benefit and get enlightened about the Vatican II liturgical reforms by taking up and reading the book by James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead entitled: “The Pope, The Council, and The Mass.”
As I read his remarks, Fr. Stravinskas was simply referring the the contempt and insults that Pope Francis frequently directs at traditionalists, especially the youthful ones.
There’s only one problem with the holy deacon’s theory: SC doesn’t say there should be further changes to the Sacred Liturgy beyond what the Council Fathers authorized. Actually, it says clearly that changes have to be seriously justified. Period.
Father, it looks as if that mischievous, ubiquitous “spirit” of VII was at work again: What the Council actually said isn’t nearly as significant as what it did NOT say.
Dear holy presbyter Father Stravinskas: The next time you preside a Vatican II Mass, I invite you to read the title page of the Roman Missal you’ll be using. It clearly says:
“THE ROMAN MISSAL RENEWED BY DECREE OF THE MOST HOLY SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN PROMULGATED BY AUTHORITY OF POPE PAUL VI AND REVISED AT THE DIRECTION OF POPE JOHN PAUL II”
Likewise, I invite you to take up and read the book by Likoudis and Whitehead.
In reply to Dom:
It’s not fair game to project the contempt of the Pontiff Francis onto people you disagree with. And I see that Fr. Stravinskas has pointed out your miscue on that account.
WRT to the actual topic, your narrative is devoid of any content or facts, amounting to nothing more than your previously demonstrated “faux-authority” flame-throwing.
All very similar to your previous behavior here in failing to respond when commenters confronted you about your falsehood of Israeli genocide against Palestinian Muslims, an attack you made in defending Hamas and giving a pass to the pathologically violent Muslim Palestinian populace.
Readers may marvel at what could engender the overconfidence inspiring you.
Indeed, we do marvel at what engenders the overconfidence inspiring the ‘good’ deacon. We note that he throws whatever magisterial sources he believes may stick so that he appears as one with authority. Let us laugh and ridicule such acts without substance. Let us laugh at the illusion for which the Deacon allows himself to be the means. Then let us pray for the poor deacon, dupe that he has allowed himself to be. Of course he disappears after he lobs his little foul-smelling smoke bombs. Blessed Mary, pray for us.
Chris: To deepen your understanding of your concerns, I invite you to take up and read the books, “The Pope, The Council, and the Mass,” by James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead; and “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” by the Israeli Jewish historian, Ilan Pappe. Be open. Be enlightened.
Deacon Dom, here’s an interesting quotation for yo to consider from a certain Fr. Josef Ratzinger, as he offered reflections on the new Roman Missal to a friend in 1976:
Father Joseph Ratzinger
Letter to Prof. Wolfgang Waldstein, 1976
The problem of the new Missal lies in its abandonment of a historical process that was always continual, before and after St. Pius V, and in the creation of a completely new book, although it was compiled of old material, the publication of which was accompanied by a prohibition of all that came before it, which, besides, is unheard of in the history of both law and liturgy. And I can say with certainty, based on my knowledge of the conciliar debates and my repeated reading of the speeches made by the Council Fathers, that this does not correspond to the intentions of the Second Vatican Council. (Wolfgang Waldstein, “Zum motuproprio Summorum Pontificum”, in Una Voce Korrespondenz 38/3 [2008], 201–214)
No Dom, you are not going to be allowed to get away with your sophomore behavior of asserting a malicious lie, and when challenged to substantiate with facts, telling reasonable people to go research your personal lifetime reading plan.
You are remarkable in this sense, that such a humble cleric can attain to very heights of episcopal high-handedness.
You are the inquisitor in the interior kangaroo court of your psyche, where your prosecution amounts to hurling false charges, delivered with your demand that other people go fish for your missing evidence.
Your behavior here is unreasonable and flippant, and signals to reasonable people that they owe such behavior no attention…except pity.
Thank God, Pope Benedict correct ted some mistakes, however when it comes to the mysterium Fidei: Is the consecration the mystery of Faith, or one of the 3/acclamations.. Thus sacred moment does not flow and is something wrong
Yes. The sacred moment is indeed cut short, the mystery aborted.
A similarly oxymoronic liturgical act is the Ex. Eucharistic Minister proffering the Eucharist, proclaiming the Host to be “The Body of Christ”. As she places the Host in the recipient’s hand, she (illicitly but nevertheless boldy) may add, “God bless you” and further appending the recipient’s name if she knows it.
In the Usus Antiquior, the priest does not say “The Body of Christ” prior to placing the Host on the recipient’s tongue. If the recipient needs that proclamation, something is sorely amiss.
Of course some argue no causation other than correlation between liturgical actions introduced to ‘implement SC.’ One such liturgical act was proclaiming the Host to be the Body of Christ and loss of belief in the Real Presence, allowing EEM’s, allowing women to distribute, allowing persons in plain clothes to distribute, allowing consecrated Hosts and Wine to be dished from glass or metal or plain wooden vessels, facing the people, removing altar rails, turning the altar into a table, etc., etc., etc. Nevertheless, correlations do exist.
The priest of the Usus Antiquior prays in a whisper, “Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.” TRANS: “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto life everlasting. Amen.” He says this AS HE MAKES THE SIGN OF THE CROSS WITH THE HOST. For EVERY INDIVIDUAL person. The Consecrated Host touches no hands other than the priest. Recipients are honored and directly blessed straight from the hands of those called by God. There is no cause, need, reason, space, time, or ROOM for liturgical abuse in the UA.
Not to justify Bugnini or Paul VI, but # 34 pretty much gave away the store, or gave license to deconstruct (‘simplify’) things, didn’t it? It seems to betray a mentality antithetical to liturgy. A thought.
Outside observations, now affirmed by the candor of Fr. Louis Bouyer (an ultimately reluctant member of the “Bugnini-commissariat” run by “His Excellency” Bugnini), prove the intentional erasing of Catholic “memory and identity” confected by the fabricators of what Laszlo Dobszay labeled “The Bugnini Mass.”
The fabrication of the Bugnini Mass was certain to produce something machined by the dual grind stones of ignorance and deceit. This is the natural outcome of the mid-wife of the Bugnini Mass, as can be learned from reading the memoirs of Fr. Louis Bouyer, who pointed out that Bugnini habitually lied to his committee “subordinates” and to Pope Paul VI. Bouyer called Bugnini “a man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty.”
Pope Paul VI, the “father” of the “New Order of the Roman Rite,” certified what Bugnini fabricated, because Pope Paul VI was a career-Vatican-diplomat of the impoverished subculture of the Vatican Secretariat of State, a subculture which shows no regard for other authorities competing for the attention it craves, including authorities of scripture and apostolic tradition. Hence, Pope Paul VI achieved what can inly be done by a juridically authoritarian culture: a Rite that Dobszay observed could not be called a Roman Rite in any sense of Roman Catholic culture, but merely by “juridical” decree.
Which all makes the “certification statement” quoted above by Dom ring very hollow.
Related to this article and the comments, let me share this series of posts made yesterday on X by Cardinal Odilo Scherer of the Archdiocese of São Paulo, Brazil. Significantly, the Cardinal is highly considered as a very conservative prelate but he is taking nothing of the ultra traditionalists’ position. The context here is his concern of the growing radicalization of Catholics due to the influence of many hard radical traditionalist media influencers including clerics, who I take are mainly having obedience issues (with their superior, bishop, the Pope) and bring along the flock entrusted to them into this path of heresy and schism. One such among Scherer’s priests was suspended for persistent disregard of Traditionis Custodes.
Here is the Cardinal posts as compiled and translated:
“Is attending the “Mass of All Time” a “right” for Catholics? Yes, it is a right. But there is only one “Mass of All Time”: the one that is regulated by the living Magisterium of the Church.” Mass is the set of rites provided for the celebration of the Eucharist. It’s not an archaeological piece, a museum piece…
“Talking about “the Mass of All Time” is a mistake and may be based on a theological and even doctrinal error. Rejecting or discrediting a supposed “new mass” also includes a theological mistake and, certainly, a doctrinal error. We need to be careful with this language, which misleads many people.
“Invoking the Decree of St. Pius V of 1570 to say that nothing can be changed in the Rite of Mass, not even by the Pope, is another serious mistake. The definition of the rite of the mass is not the same as the definition of a dogma of faith. Would anyone dare to say that after St. Pius V the Holy Spirit stopped acting in the Church?
“The Rite of liturgical celebration of the Eucharist is neither eternal nor immutable. To begin with, Jesus did not celebrate the Eucharist as we do in the 21st century, or did in the 16th or 20th century. What is eternal and immutable is the Sacrament of the Eucharist instituted by Jesus Christ and entrusted to the Church.
“It is up to the Church, through the authority of its living Magisterium, to establish the rite of celebration of the Eucharist.
“Let’s be clear: “Mass of All Time” is just one: the one that is celebrated in accordance with the determinations of the living Magisterium of the Church. The rest is SERIOUS LITURGICAL ABUSE and lack of communion in the Church.
“The saints and the faithful, in communion with the Church in the past and present, celebrated and celebrate Mass according to the liturgical rite in force at each time.
“The problem is not simply the “Tridentine Mass,” but the denial of the Second Vatican Council, alleging false arguments. To deny the Council is to deny the Catholic faith in the Church itself. From denial of the Council we then go to denial of the Pope’s legitimacy. And from there, there is chaos in the Church.
“The rite of the Sacraments, including the Eucharist, is not a matter of subjective personal conscience. It is the responsibility of the Magisterium of the Church, which we can only accept and obey.
““Novus ordo missae” means “new order (or ritual) of the Mass.” This is very different from “new mass.” The “Novus ordo missae” did not “produce” a “new mass,” but updated the rite of the one mass. There are not two masses… the “new” and the “all time.” To say so would be a serious mistake.”
Looking at the picture of the Sistine Chapel it struck me: these men are all dead! OH GOD HAVE MERCY ON US ALL HAVE MERCY!!!