FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Cardinal Canizares (Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship) recently gave a talk on the Vatican II and his major point was that the Council did not authorize a Mass that would create rupture with tradition. He blames wild creativity -- going well beyond what was authorized by the Council -- for some of the absurd things we see in the Mass today. More interestingly, he blames the same creativity and disregard of the proper rubrics as the cause of the separation of the SSPX.

According to Card. Canizares, liturgical abuses is what "enraged" Archbishop Lefebvre (presumably more than supposed doctrinal changes?). That of itself is interesting ... but he goes on (this is reported by La Croix, so original language in French):

Quote:« Même les membres de la FSSPX, lorsqu’ils participent à une messe célébrée correctement, disent qu’il n’y aurait pas eu besoin de cette séparation avec l’Église catholique si c’était ainsi partout », a affirmé le cardinal Canizares, précisant que, de l’aveu de Mgr Bernard Fellay, actuel supérieur de la Fraternité, Mgr Lefebvre n’aurait sans doute pas souhaité la rupture si la messe était célébrée partout « selon la forme la plus stricte » du nouveau Missel de Paul VI.

My paraphrase (someone with better French can do a translation if they like) -- Even members of the SSPX say their separation from the Church would not be necessary if the Mass of Paul VI was celebrated properly everywhere. Bishop Fellay has speculated that Arch. Lefebvre would not have broken from the Church if the New Mass was celebrated everywhere according to the strictest rubrics.

I wonder if this something Bishop Fellay actually said -- I don't remember this speculation being raised in any of his public comments.

Source: http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Urbi-Or...-17-900182

Abp. Lefebvre himself was part of the Council and had no problem with the Council as read in light of Tradition. There really weren't any doctrinal changes and much of Vatican II is just re-hashing of former councils. Rosarium put it rather succinctly in another thread whose URL escapes me at the moment.

That very well may be the case, but problems with the New Mass is not the publicly stated raison d'être of the SSPX, either then by Arch. Lefebvre or now by Bishop Fellay.

I think it is fairly well-documented that ++Lefebvre's real problems were with the new Rites and thus validity or lack thereof of Holy Orders, and with novel dogmas and praxis, especially in the areas of the Social Kingship of Christ, religious liberty, and ecumenism.

It is likely true that had the implementation of the Novus Ordo been according to a "traditional-looking" manner, many people would not have been so concerned about an attachment to the TLM. One absolutely must realize, however, that this is little more than a senseless and academic issue which does not exist in reality: there was never any real possibility that a "traditional" implementation of the Novus Ordo would have happened, because the very point and design of the new Mass was to change the theology of the Mass and to change the Faith. This needs to be repeated over and over and over and over again until we really remember and get it (myself included).

Neo-cons really like to promote this idea that what people were upset about was the bad externals, and not the rites and teachings themselves, in there essences. It allows one to conveniently gloss over real issues and say, well now we recognize that liberals did some bad things in the name of the "Spirit of VII," but if we actually look to the sources, the Council, the rubrics of the NO, it is really okay. Neo-cons have made careers and a cottage industry out of doing just this, and it sounds nice pretty much every time but it is hogwash every time too.

Really well said MRose.

(01-17-2013, 08:59 PM)Flumen Wrote: [ -> ]Really well said MRose.

Indeed.

(01-17-2013, 09:10 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2013, 08:59 PM)Flumen Wrote: [ -> ]Really well said MRose.

Indeed.

The last part especially is something I find I have to remind myself of often, because it is so easy and alluring to be lulled into giving ground to the neo-con "narrative."