22 April 2022


 The NLM blog, last Tuesday, had a set of quotations from Cardinal Ratzinger. They go back over his long years and his many decades. They demonstrate that the Usus Deterior (or Novus Ordo, or Unicus Usus, or Ordinary Form ... whatever you want to call it) is not what Vatican II wanted and mandated; and that it is contrary to the nearly two Christian millennia that preceded it ...  in terms both of Law and of Liturgical Custom.

Then there is the question of the intentions of the Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI when he issued his own Summorum Pontificum.

Lots and lots of VERY BIG LIES are currently being told (and acted upon) BY VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE, about all these related matters

We need facts.

We are in Peter Kwasniewski's debt (as so very often) for ensuring that these highly important quotations are right at our finger tips.



coradcorloquitur said...

So, am I impudent, irreverent, or disloyal for wondering how a Catholic faithful to tradition and to the teachings of the Church can reconcile such a "foundation" of mendacity with the modern(ist) insistence that Vatican II spoke infallibly from the Holy Ghost as well as the narrative that anything flowing from it is absolutely God's holy will?

Anita Moore said...

I don't know. Many of the fathers of the Council may not have thought they were signing on to what we eventually got in the Novus Ordo, but what about the actual authors of the documents? Sacrosanctum concilium specifically contemplates a sweeping revision of the liturgy. It does say that certain things are not to be done, like innovations, improvisations and the removal of the Latin language; but then other parts, like sections 33-36, kick the door wide open for whatever the "experts," in "consultation" with the bishops, want. There is really nothing substantial in those sections that limits the discretion of these people charged with revising the liturgy, as experience would demonstrate. Section 36, which deals with the use of the vernacular, is couched in such slippery terms as could ultimately allow what we did in fact get, namely, the entire liturgy in the vernacular with no Latin. (In fairness, I am going by the English translation on the Vatican website.)

Also, what about the assumptions that underlie Sacrosanctum concilium? Is it really true that the old Mass is characterized by "useless repetition," and was it really beyond the comprehension of ordinary pew sitters? Is the alleged need for revising the liturgy really grounded in truth?

Is there really a possibility of exonerating or rehabilitating Vatican II?

E sapelion said...

I think these are all facts, if not I am happy to see corrections.
1) In 1962 there was an editio typica of the Roman Missal. That superseded the previous edition.
2) Following some of the recommendations of Sacrosanctum Concilium there was a new editio typica in 1965, revising the rubrics, dropping the recitation of Psalm 43/42, and reducing the words of administration of Holy Communion. It also authorised limited use of the vernacular. This was the standard Missal after the start of Lent in 1965, and superseded 1962.
3)There was a further Instruction issued in 1967 with extensive changes to the rubrics, and authorising vernacular throughout the Mass. Because of the need for authorised vernacular translations, there was no one editio typica of this Missal, instead there were lists of approved commercial publications. I think this came into effect at Advent 1967.
4) The complete revision of the Mass was published in 1969, but because of the need for vernacular translations, it was imposed only as and when each Bishops Conference had a definitive edition, and there were some limited exceptions to its imposition. Firstly priests who by reason of age or infirmity had difficulty changing to the new missal were permitted to continue to use the existing (1967) version. Secondly because a number of indults were issued on behalf of Paul VI, for pastoral reasons.
5) An example of these indults is that for England&Wales - Prot. N. 1897/71. It states :-
" The edition of the Missal to be used on these occasions should be that published again by the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (27 January 1965), and with the modifications indicated in the Instructio altera (4 May 1967). "

I understand from these facts that the 'Missal antecedent to 1969' means the 1967 specified above. And that from 1967 until the authorisation locally of the NO that was the sole approved form.

B flat said...

The doubt underlying coradcorloquitur's comment is understandable. So much that raises similar questions has been characterisedin te recent past by prudent and conservative prelates and academics as "causing confusion" among the Faithful.
I am personally convinced, that euphemisms, and polite suggestions, are insufficient to dislodge this enormous skandalon which causes so many to lose heart, and even to abandon their vocation to follow Christ in the Church He has founded.
The root cause in these cases of scandal and confusion is dishonesty - a lie - uttered by the agaents or proponents of change. Fortunately. as Dr Kwasniewski is in a good position to demonstrate with evidence, the lies are recorded with little possibility of escape when investigation seeks out those who are guilty.
Christ IS the Truth. Those who disregard truth and promote a lie, are working for, and following, the devil who is a liar himself, and the father of lies.
How can lying by someone ordained to hierarchical office in the Church, be overlooked as mere misdemeanour, when the very nature of his position in the hierarchy requires him to transmit the Faith once committed to the Saintswhich is built on the Truth which sets us free?
These people will be tried, by a court dispensng justice by God's Law and the Canons of the Church, and any party found guilty will be deposed to the lay state.
There is plenty of evidence. The outcome is certain. I hope fear of the consequences brings at least some to repentance, and a return to the life of Faith in Christ.
Or can the Church of Christ be altogether changed into the Synagogue of Satan?