Continues ...
The Chiron biography of Bugnini records that, during the pre-Conciliar drafting of the decree Sacrosanctum Concilium, "at no time, it seems, did any participant (member or consultor) ever propose - at least publicly - the addition of other canons to the sole Roman Canon then in use. Some, however, were proposing that changes ought to be introduced into it."
Ha!, I hear you cry. So the rats were already nibbling away ...
True. But how deep were these rodents biting? One of them was a man called Vagaggini, later to be a great advocate of the proliferation of Eucharistic Prayers. What, in 1961, was his daringly radical , earth-shaking, proposal?
"Granting the faculty of introducing one or two local saints among those named in the Canon".
!!!
If only!
Some bold Austrian Jesuit called Hofinger said there ought to be no prohibition against changing something in the Canon. This led to an immediate retort from the most distinguished and learned historian of the Canon, J A Jungmann. His magisterial two-volume History of the Roman Rite is still normative. He was a colleague and former teacher of the Bold Jesuit.
"But those changes ought to occur only for the gravest reasons," he said.
We need to remember (1) how rapidly the entire landscape was to change. Less than a decade after these comparatively restrained scholarly debates, the Roman Canon had to all intents and purposes ceased to be used and some two or three hundred home-made "Eucharistic Prayers" were, to S Paul VI's great consternation, in circulation. And (2), that in 1961, neither the avant-garde, the Hofingers, not the rear-gard, the Lefebvres, had the faintest, remotest, tiniest idea of where we know now it would all lead.
Chiron's biography of Bugnini enables you to go back in time and to be a fly on the wall as the 'experts' ... if you will allow me to mix my metaphors ... edged blindly forward into the quicksands and through the mist.
I shall, from time to time, make more use of Chiron.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The prayers of The Real Mass are good, true, and beautiful and their existence came in to being owing to the puissant and productive prose of the purest ever to live amongst us- the Saints - who opened themselves up to the Holy Ghost rather than the world.
Compare the puissant prose and power of true love in the Offertory Prayer vs the worldly sentiments of the secularised scribblers who wrote the Lil' Licit Liturgy Offertory and judged their own crummy prayers worthier than the prose and prayers of the Saints and so they kilt the prayers of the Saints and substituted their own worldly and woeful words, based on a meal prayer of The Messias-Deniers, The Jews.
These are the crummy prayers preferred by all modern Popes and Prelates and by their preference they reveal what is in their hearts and it is the ugliness of the world that is in their hearts and so they prefer the worldly and woeful words of the secularised scribblers which is why they hate- HATE - the Real Mass which is the puissant love of the purest who have ever lived.
Imagine your own self as a priest and you had the option of using the Real Mass or The Lil' Licit Liturgy to worship the one whom you putatively love above all - which would you choose?
Imagine you are a young man in love with a beautiful woman in the 1960s. Were you to have written poetry to her to express your love would you have sought out The Bard for inspiration or would you have read Stanyan Street by Rod MeKuen in preparation of preparing poetry?
The secularised scribblers of the 1960s then preferred McKuen to Shakespeare and by continuing the hermeneutic of revolution
they continue to reveal what is in their hearts - a very weak, nearly invisibilium, love of their Lord and Saviour.
The very best of prose, praise, and prayers is a matter of indifference to them.
Yes it is an enlightening book - you see how relatively rapidly things began to change once the consilium began its work. At the same time, it's not all just Bugnini (though he was instrumental and essential) - it seems many were swept up into the Zeitgeist (the evolution of Vaganini being a good example).
The fact that some people played the role of Lenin's useful idiots (whether real or contrived) is neither here nor there is it? There was a Lenin. He knew what he wanted and used whatever ploy he needed to get what he wanted. The fact that the destruction of the Roman Rite was a cause to celebrate for these reprobates who brought about its destruction is enough is it not?
Dear ABC
"The Messias-deniers, the Jews" seems to me a trifle confused.
There are Jews who are Christians and there are Jews who deny Christ.
And
There are Gentiles who are Christians and there are Gentiles who deny Christ.
I think is dangerously mistaken to simplify this into
"Jews = Christ-deniers and Gentiles = Christ-affirmers"
Dear Father. ABS is just rhetorically pushing back against the risible idea that it is a horrible thing to be a Holocaust Denier whereas to be a Messias-Denier is a matter of indifference even though the eternal consequence of being a Messias-Denier is infinitely worse than being a holocaust-denier.
Just look at how Pope Benedict XVI reacted when the Jews began to screech when he lifted the excommunication of Bishop Williamson of the SSPX. (Is he even a holocaust denier or one who doubts part of that sacred secular history?) Whether intended or not the Pope clearly gave off the impression that for Catholics holocaust denial is a far worse place for one to pitch his tent than Messias-Denial.
It is prolly obvious how much love and respect for you that ABS is possessed of and so he will simply drop that rhetorical gambit here if that is what you desire.
Pax tecum.
ABS
Dear ABC
You wrote rather as if you thought that all Jews were Messias-deniers. I would naturally dispute that strongly out of respect and love for our Blessed Lady.
Dear Father. The Jewish scholar, Jacob Neusner, observes that any Jew who accepts that Jesus is Messias and converts to Christianity is no longer considered by other Jews to be a Jew whereas a Jew can convert to Buddhism and remains accepted as a Jew by other Jews.
You have made your desire known and ABS will keep that in mind for any future post he makes.
Pax tecum
So Lefebvre’s attitude was basically:
1965: Gee, I guess a few changes won't hurt…
1970: On second thoughts, let's stick with the tried and the true…
Last time I went to an SSPX Mass, the priest chanted the Collect, Epistle and Gospel in Latin at the altar, knowing that we had leaflets containing the propers of the mass in Latin and the vernacular.
(You see, young people, in 1965 there were no laptops, no internet, no Microsoft Word, no laser printers, no photocopiers as we know them. Today it's a piece of cake to knock out 100 copies of a leaflet with the propers of any Mass you please, in Latin and the vernacular, in two neat columns. Go online, copy and paste the texts you need into Word, do a bit of formatting, press the print button, and Bob's your uncle. You have no idea how time-consuming and expensive it would have been to do the same thing in 1965.)
"Granting the faculty of introducing one or two local saints among those named in the Canon".
Hm. Now there's an intriguing idea.
The Gelasian Sacramentary had a number of saints in the Communicantes that were later erased but are still visible. Sts. Hilary and Martin sometimes appear in early Roman Missals.
The Communicantes seems to want Fathers, proto-martyrs, or the Apostles of a region. St. Augustine of Canterbury appears to fit well....St. Thomas More rather less so.
Isn't it the very definition of progressivism, in all its forms, to dismiss the wisdom of all prior generations and to go blindly into the mist? And isn't it unsurprising that, due to the laws of probability if nothing else, the destination is almost always Catastrophe?
Have a look at this, please:http://www.kathnews.de/sacrificium-laudis-und-oblatio-als-schluessel-zur-struktur-und-aussage-des-canon-missae-das-problem-der-kanonhermeneutik-und-der-deutschen-uebersetzung-des-messkanons-teil-1
Post a Comment