CDF head on the Novus Ordo
#1
Item here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/08...-mass.html

"Let us talk now about the fruits which the Vatican II produced. Can you comment on this?
[B:] First of all of course the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” in comparison with the Tridentine Catechism: after the Council of Trent, the Catechismus Romanus was launched in order to provide parish priests, preachers etcetera with guidelines on how to preach and announce the Gospel or evangelize.

Even the 1983 Code of Canon Law can be considered a consequence of the Council. I must emphasise that the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II which by the way has not really been implemented even to this day. The indiscriminate removal of Latin and Gregorian Chants from liturgical celebrations and the erection of numerous altars were absolutely not acts prescribed by the Council.

With the benefit of hindsight, let us cast our minds back in particular to the lack of sensitivity shown in terms of care for the faithful and in the pastoral carelessness shown in the liturgical form. One need only think of the Church’s excesses, reminiscent of the Beeldenstorm (the statue/image storm) which occurred in the 18th century. Excesses which catapulted numerous faithful into total chaos, leaving many fumbling around in the dark.

Just about anything and everything has been said on this subject. Meanwhile, the liturgy has come to be seen as a mirror image of Church life, subject to an organic historical evolution which cannot - as did indeed happen - suddenly be changed by decree par ordre de mufti. And we are still paying the price today."
Reply
#2
Wow! That was a pretty scathing criticism of the Novus Ordo.  Even ten years ago, who would have expected comments like this?

I checked the original article at RC and these comments were made by Cardinal Brandmuller, not Cardinal Muller.  So it wasn't the head of the CDF, but still encouraging.
Reply
#3
Yeah, that was the good Cardinal Brandmuller. Said some very good things in the past such as Nostra Aetate & Dignitatis Humanae are "non-binding doctrinal content" since they are simple Declarations and is up for "theological debate." It's no surprise he came out and said these things in this article, definitely a favorite of mine.
Reply
#4
(08-28-2012, 05:49 PM)Dmorgan Wrote: I must emphasise that the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II which by the way has not really been implemented even to this day. The indiscriminate removal of Latin and Gregorian Chants from liturgical celebrations and the erection of numerous altars were absolutely not acts prescribed by the Council.

I would worry about anyone lauding Vatican II in any way.  The Novus Ordo is headed for the ash heap anyway.  But there's an increasing trend to tinker with the TLM.  And if those attached to Vatican II couldn't get rid of the TLM by imposing the Novus Ordo, then the Novus Ordo can go and the TLM will be tinkered with into oblivion. That was probably the original plan to incrementally destroy the TLM over a longer period but the liberals got out of hand due to their exuberant impatience.
Reply
#5
(08-29-2012, 09:56 PM)Gerard Wrote: That was probably the original plan to incrementally destroy the TLM over a longer period but the liberals got out of hand due to their exuberant impatience.

Not liberals, but modernists.
Reply
#6
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but the illegal suppression of the True Mass was probably a good thing. It preserved it in the small enclaves that stuck to it. If they phase out the Novus Ordo and start tinkering with the Roman Mass now, then this coming phase of the revolution is more dangerous than the last.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)