Review At Nlm Of New Book On Liturgy

[Nihil Obstat]

I think it is more productive to focus on ways to improve the OF as it is practiced rather than on the problems in its creation.

Both may require each other.

[Perigrina]

Both may require each other.

 

Granted. People who are involved with the reform and renewal of the OF (like the conference participants) need to talk about its problems, both in origin and practice.  It is a necessary step in improving liturgy. In this circumstance, it is constructive criticism for the good of the Church.  Unfortunately, this is rarely true, in my experience, of online discussions of problems with the OF.  These tend to be negative, angry and emotional, far more likely to harm the Church than to help her.

[Nihil Obstat]

Granted. People who are involved with the reform and renewal of the OF (like the conference participants) need to talk about its problems, both in origin and practice.  It is a necessary step in improving liturgy. In this circumstance, it is constructive criticism for the good of the Church.  Unfortunately, this is rarely true, in my experience, of online discussions of problems with the OF.  These tend to be negative, angry and emotional, far more likely to harm the Church than to help her.

Yes, bitterness does not help us.

[Perigrina]

Yea, wish someone told the fathers of the Second Vatican Council not to alienate people who are attached to the Roman liturgy

 

I am not sure what you think the Council fathers did to alienate people.  Sacrosanctis Concilium made reasonable enough recommendations.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yeah, the Council itself was ok when it came to the Liturgy. Perhaps not perfect, but few of us expect perfection. The issues that we identify as people attached to the traditional Mass came after the council, with Bugnini being the figurehead and a leading agent.

[Perigrina]

Yeah, the Council itself was ok when it came to the Liturgy. Perhaps not perfect, but few of us expect perfection. The issues that we identify as people attached to the traditional Mass came after the council, with Bugnini being the figurehead and a leading agent.

 

Exactly. I find it unlikely that most of the Council fathers would have predicted the Mass that we ended up with, especially not as commonly practiced.

[Nihil Obstat]

Exactly. I find it unlikely that most of the Council fathers would have predicted the Mass that we ended up with, especially not as commonly practiced.

As the story goes, when the College of Cardinals was 'treated' to Mass ad experimentum in the Sistine Chapel celebrated by Bugnini according to the schema he had developed, they were absolutely horrified and many actually walked out.

[mortify ii]

Was Archbishop Lefebvre one of them?

[Perigrina]

Was Archbishop Lefebvre one of them?

 

I don't know about that, but he did sign Sacrosanctis Concilium and supported the liturgical reforms of Pius XI and Pius XII and the reform of the Breviary under John XXIII.

[Nihil Obstat]

Was Archbishop Lefebvre one of them?

I believe the experimental Mass was celebrated only for the College of Cardinals, but I can try to find that reference again. I seem to remember one 'big name' being referenced, and since Cardinal Ottaviani was blind at that point, I think it might have been Giuseppe Siri.

[truthfinder]

There's also the point in the council when they asked for an opinion on the new liturgy whether people would accept the OF with proper catechesis, and they 70% responded that people would not like/accept (sorry read the reference a while back) the change.  Unfortunately, there was not proper catechesis.

[mortify ii]

I don't know about that, but he did sign Sacrosanctis Concilium and supported the liturgical reforms of Pius XI and Pius XII and the reform of the Breviary under John XXIII.

 

Yes he did sign that document but you have to remember that most Council Fathers were under the impression the Mass would remain mostly the same. The documents are intentionally ambiguous, you have paragraphs promoting revolution juxtaposed to paragraphs safeguarding tradition. I forgot who coined the term, perhaps it was Michael Davies who said these documents contained "liturgical time-bombs." These were intentionally ambiguous statement that could later be used to bring in radical reforms. The ambiguous nature of these documents reminds me of Emperor Zeno's Henotikon, and we all know what the Church did with the Henotikon. 

 

And as an aside, the Archbishop did not sign the documents concerning Religion and Freedom and the Church in the Modern World.

[mortify ii]

Perigrina, why do you support the reforms of Cardinal Bugnini? 

[CountrySteve21]

Speaking of which, could any of you all recommend a good book on the changes to the Liturgy? (One thats not in opposition to the Council) 

[Perigrina]

Perigrina, why do you support the reforms of Cardinal Bugnini? 

 

I believe that people ought to exercise prudence in where and how they criticize the reforms of Cardinal Bugnini.  This is not the same as supporting them.