Thursday, October 31, 2013

Heh ... Only an EF fan would notice this

Habemus ad Dominum: Francis turns towards God (Rorate Caeli, October 31, 2013):
In a Paul VI mass celebrated on the tomb of John Paul II this Thursday, the Pope celebrated versus Deum, apparently for the first time in this pontificate.

Rorate wisely warns readers not to read anything at all into this. Move along, folks. Nothing more to see here.


I am not Spartacus said...

Well, there is that - but, it is still the Lil' Licit Liturgy and a Pope ought not be doing such a thing even in private, say nothing about doing that in public.

Take some time and re-read, Sacrosanctum Concilium for there are innumerable reasons it was first on the modernists agenda, chief among them is the reality that it is via the Mass that most Catholics are learnt Theology and Doctrine; that is, if'n'yer a modernist/new theologian and you want the dumbass people (what? You thought they didn't think you were benighted boobs telling their beads teeming with superstition, lacking love for those who hated you?) to adopt your new theology, you HAVE to change the Mass.

To me, SC it is a galactic sized rupture with Trent and reading it is not unlike the experience to be had sitting outside the Golden Corral at closing time as the beefy broads from the Oprah Book Club come waddling out; that is, Sacrosanctum Concilium is one long line of ugly buts.

Latin yes, but vernacular; Gregorian Chant but....

Rev. Anthony Cekada rightly observed (Work of Human Hands that ...But on this question, as on so many others in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, both sides and neither side was simultaneously right and wrong. They were arguing over another vintage Vatican II formulation, written in the yes-but-no, on-one-hand/on-the-other/hand style.

And having seduced the conciliar conservatives (girondists) into signing onto this questionable hard-to-pin-down product, the conciliar Jacobins worked their new theology will and wrecked the Roman Rite but that was to be expected given that Sacrosanctum Concilium was written by a Mason, Bugnini, and a cleric who hated the Roman Rite, Jungmann.

There can be no restoration until the Bugnini Rite is completely and utterly destroyed.

Sheldon said...

IANS makes a good point. The first time this was driven home for me was reading Christopher Ferrara's essay, "Sacrosanctum Concilium: A Lawyer Examines the Loopholes." He goes through the "conservative norms" and the "liberal norms," and then concludes:

"No one who reads SC carefully in the light of our experience since the Council can deny that it constitutes a "blank check" for liturgical reform, with the amount to be filled in depending entirely upon who is wielding the pen. The few "conservative" norms which seem to limit the possibility of liturgical change are clearly overwhelmed by the far more numerous and pervasive "liberal" norms which create an almost unlimited potential for destruction of the liturgy.

"Yet, except for restoring the prayer of the faithful in Article 53, SC does not actually mandate a single specific change in the text or rubrics of the traditional Order of Mass. This would appear to be the main reason the Council Fathers were induced to vote for the document, since it did not threaten any apparent harm to the Latin liturgical tradition. And it is also the reason neither the "conservatives" nor anyone else can determine "the authentic reform desired by the Council" from a reading of SC.

"While SC opened the way to all manner of possible liturgical reforms, the simple truth of the matter is that it mandated no particular reform of the liturgy. SC is, quite simply, silent about what kind of reformed liturgy the Council Fathers had in mind, if indeed the Council majority shared any common conception at all about the matter. In practice, however, SC unquestionably served as the license for a vast project of liturgical reform and the ceding of effective control over the liturgy to the national hierarchies, with calamitous results.

"The emergence of "conservative" demands for an "authentic reform" of the liturgy demonstrate that unless SC is reconsidered, along with the disastrous changes it engendered, the liturgical crisis in the Roman Rite will never end. The demands for "renewal" by liberals on the one hand, and for "authentic renewal" by conservatives on the other, will continue to revolve around this utterly problematical document so long as it continues to serve as a warrant for the liturgical-reformist mentality, which the Council unwittingly unleashed upon the Church.

"The only way to restrain that mentality and restore liturgical sanity in the Roman Rite is full restoration of our Latin liturgical tradition - taken from us overnight, only 30 years ago."

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

"...there are innumerable reasons [Sacrosanctum Concilium] was first on the modernists' agenda, chief among them is the reality that it is via the Mass that most Catholics are learnt Theology and Doctrine; that is, if'n'yer a modernist/new theologian and you want the dumbass people ... to adopt your new theology, you HAVE to change the Mass.

This is key! I won't go so far as to say that I'm feeling scales fall from my eyes, but it's a dimly related feeling of late, to be sure.

Chris Garton-Zavesky said...


How is one to get from here to there?

If one calls another Council, one must recognize the perils therein. (Most of today's bishops were John Paul appointments.)

Otherwise, one must rely on Papal action. Is that likely?


Sheldon said...

These are perilous times. I have little hope for earthly prospects.

In short, I, for one, am not at all sanguine about our likelihood of getting from here to there in our lifetimes or, for that matter, within this short breath of earthly history. I await and hope and pray for the eternal liturgy of heaven, which will surely be "extraordinary," Deo gratias.

We do what we can and wait for the Return of the King.