A Major Storm: The 1962 Missal Abrogated?

Professor of liturgy Matias Augé posted on his blog the response of Enzo G. Castellari regarding whether the 1962 missal was abrogated. A friend of Pray Tell offers it to our readers in translation.  – Ed.

I do not intend to reopen the debate about whether the 1962 Missal was abrogated or not; it is amply dealt with in this blog. I offer the readers these responses made by Enzo G. Castellari to the posting of Don Alfredo M. Morselli, “The Errors of Prof. Andrea Grillo,” in Messainlatino.it (5/16/2011).

“We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

“We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.”

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, Holy Thursday, April 3 1969, the sixth year of Our pontificate.

PAUL VI, POPE [Official Vatican Translation]

Obviously this does not refer to abrogating a “missal,” since that would be an idiotic thing to say. It would be like claiming to abrogate a historic personage from the past! The missal is not abrogated; the legality of the missal is abrogated. What is abrogated is the juridic norm that imposes a missal as being now in force, that is obligatory and to be used in the entire Church. What is abrogated is the Bull Quo Primum, which ratifies the obligatory nature of the Tridentine rite, making it, with “motu proprial” language, the “ordinary rite,” although it would be more correct to call it “the rite currently in force.” Saint Pius V himself did not abrogate the preceding missals but imposed the obligatory nature of using his missal, rendering the use of other texts (with some derogations) illicit, not invalid.

Paul VI does not abrogate the Tridentine rite, but abrogates the validity of its missal. Only a scoundrel could affirm that a Mass can be abrogated. One abrogates a law, not a sacrament. And [in this instance] the law that is abrogated by a subsequent law is the law that imposes the Tridentine missal as obligatory. Paul VI imposes his missal as obligatory and explicitly decrees that the constitutions of his predecessors (among which is Quo Primum) lose their effectiveness.

It is a little silly to claim that it is not explicitly mentioned, given the fact that the entire constitution Missale Romanum quotes the Bull and the rite of Saint Pius V, saying that the new missal replaces it. But its conclusion is as clear as can be: that everything is abrogated.

At best, one could say that the new missal is a bad one then explain the theological reasons for its not being a good one and in light of this having ascertained a state of crisis and of necessity, interpret the law according to epikeia and prudently choose to celebrate with the Tridentine rite, well aware, however, that the letter of a norm (that of Paul VI) is being violated, to fulfill in spirit the higher principle of divine worship. If this is not said, one is in grave error.

The quibble of the numquam abrogatum [“never abrogated – ed.] is only an excuse. What will you all do on the day that Benedict – or whoever acts in his name – abrogates everything to make the hybrid missal and quotes explicitly all the documents? Will you become modernists, given that all your traditional scrupulous attention to detail in your research rests on a shaky criticism that keeps your foot stuck in two shoes?

Let us say this clearly: Lefebvre, the Una Voce association and others in the 1970s fought to affirm that the old rite had not been abrogated. BUT this is to be understood in the context of those years! It was the “softer” solution, to justify the very existence of that Catholic anomaly that was the traditionalist world, without falling openly in schism (because refusing to obey a law of the Pope is a matter of schism).

Traditionalism is a rebellion against Paul VI, against his theology, his Mass, his seminary reforms, against the new direction of the Church that he set in motion. But Paul VI was the Pope and so one either fell into “Sede Vacante-ism” or became a schismatic, or else one sought a prudent and stopgap solution in order to do things like they were done before, without FORMALLY disobeying. The question of the numquam abrogatum seemed, at the time, the best thing to do in order to have it both ways, that is, hierarchical obedience to the Pope in order to remain Catholics and obedience to the tradition in order to remain Catholics!

It was not yet the most obvious strategy to affirm that disobedience was a way of obeying, because diplomatic means and accommodations were tried first. At that time Una Voce held more prudent positions and Lefevbre, to a certain point, abandoned his initial (but highly justifiable and understandable) position to speak openly of EPIKEIA. His episcopal consecrations were, in fact, carried out according to this principle (which is itself established by Canon Law).

Today, however, to speak again of a rite never being juridically abrogated is only nonsense, a “paraculata” [a self-serving action] as they say in Rome. Which explains why the Pope [Benedict] avails himself of the strategy of pretending not to have restored anything — and thus of not being a reactionary – and the traditionalists, fearful of being “schismatics” for love of the lace they use, pretend obedience to the Pope and to the law.

I repeat: I want to see you all tomorrow when the rite will be abrogated “in the proper way” to carry out the reform of the reform. What will you say then?

Share:

45 comments

  1. Leaving aside the canon law issues, this approach makes better psychological and sociological sense.

    In my music collection are performances such as an Old Roman Chant paschal vespers service with combined Latin and Greek texts. We ought to be able to reconstruct these ancient liturgies not only for musical performances, and academic liturgical study, but also as a means to explore the spirituality of past ages by actual liturgical celebrations, even creating temporary or permanent communities for their exploration. Past liturgical texts should enrich our present spirituality in the same way that we do when we celebrate the OF in different cultures or the Divine Liturgy according to various Eastern Rites.

    B16 should have established a set of rules whereby any older Western liturgies could be used with the proper permission of a local bishop, or in the case of academic and cultural institutions and religious orders with a broad permission from Rome. Such a strategy would have answered the psychological problem of saying that a past liturgical practice is somehow bad for people today. It was a good spirituality for the past even though it might not be the best spirituality for most people today. It is possible that for some people today a past liturgical practice might foster an appropriate spirituality. A local bishop is the best judge of whether this is true for individuals and communities. Academic and cultural institutions and religious orders are also good places where the past might be authentically pursued according to historical evidence rather than personal opinion.

    The difficulty of SP from a sociological standpoint is that it creates only two Forms, thereby promoting conflict between them by contrasting one with the other. If we had more Forms, e.g. an Anglican Form, etc. there is a larger chance these will promote creative competition and various spiritualities like religious orders, rather than promote a division and the potential for schism of only two Forms.

  2. I think the author makes a bit of a leap in assuming that the “reform of the reform” Missal would somehow require the actual and effectively complete abrogation of the 1962 Missal. Why would this have to be the case? He seems to be trying to turn the tables on the traditionalists argument… Sort of a “wait til it happens to you…then what will you say”!

    But why would traditionalists, particularly those who advocate for the 1962 Missal, feel any different about any future attempts to abrogate the 62 Missal? That question has already been settled it seems. For the foreseeable future, there will be an “Extraordinary Form” Missal and an “Ordinary Form” Missal. If there will eventually be a ROTR Missal as he is claiming, it would be a revision of the OF Missal and would replace it without having any effect whatsoever on the EF Missal. There is no reason why such a revision would require the abrogation of both. The ROTR is a “reform of the reform“, that is, a reform of the NO Missal. The author gives way too much credibility to the idea of a future “hybrid” Missal, assumin that such is the actual goal of Summorum Pontificum. In that respect he has missed the mark.

    1. Well, there is the pesky issue of an ecumenical council of the Church decreeing that the then-missal should be reformed. Reform of the ’62 Missal remains quite on the table.

      1. The prudential decisions of a Council on matters of discipline do not bind any longer than the Church decides that they do. Otherwise we’d still be bound by the Tridentine decision prohibiting the Communion of lay people from the Chalice.

      2. Repeatedly on this blog commenters decree that the 1962 Missal has not been reformed. What do you think the Missal of Paul VI is?

      3. John, it seems pretty clear that the reform of the 1962 Missal was not intended to be a tangential liturgical project for the Church. It was decreed in need of reform with the intention that it would not be used in its pre-/un-reformed state. Consider this analogy:

        A house is found to be wanting some important and necessary repairs. A new house is built next to it that takes into account the repairs needed to the first house, but then the inhabitants remain in the first house.

        What is the point of decreeing reforms for the 1962 Missal and then permitting it to be celebrated without those reforms enacted?

      4. Jeffrey, consider that sometimes people build a new house based on their ideas of what they’d like in a house and move into it only to find it not as congenial as the house they left behind. Some of them even move back into the old house.

      5. Move back into the old house with the charming historical features but with no indoor plumbing, electricity, or heating other than from the fireplace? Only a tiny number of traditionalists would be willing to stay in that place for longer than a short exotic vacation!

      6. Well, it seems to me the reformed Mass is said everyday…the Novus Ordo. And good Pope Paul VI specifically allowed the “unreformed” 1962 Mass under an indult pretty quickly after the NO was put into practice.

        I would grant that the 1962 Missal should be allowed to “grow”, for example, to include newer saints. But the reform has occurred, and most Catholics experience it every Sunday.

      7. Claire, perhaps the people who choose the old house are willing to put the effort into making it modern.

    2. If there will eventually be a ROTR Missal as he is claiming, it would be a revision of the OF Missal and would replace it without having any effect whatsoever on the EF Missal. There is no reason why such a revision would require the abrogation of both.

      The 1962 Missal cannot continue unreformed (according to Vatican II’s decrees) forever. That would be the repudiation of the decision of all the bishops of the Catholic Church. Only if another council (or I suppose, a particularly authoritarian pope) were to decree otherwise could the Vatican II reforms be nullified.

      I do not think that Benedict is such a pope as to nullify V2’s reforms or legislate a reform-free 1962 Missal; his minor revisions of the 1962 Missal show that, however slowly, he is not opposed to its continued development and reform. At the same time, Univ. Eccl. seems to isolate the 1962 Missal from even the first implementations of SC, such as 1964’s Inter Oecumenici.

      The 1962 Missal was meant to be reformed by Vatican II. One can argue whether such reform was sufficiently embodied in, say, the 1965 edition, or the 1969+ editions.

      Perhaps — and this is my own mere conjecture — Benedict desires the 1962 Missal to be reformed anew, re-applying the decrees of SC to it, and regarding the changes found in the Instructions on SC’s implementation as possible (but not necessarily absolute) applications of those decrees.

      Maybe in the not-terribly-distant future, we will have two reformed forms of the Roman Rite, one from the 1969- stock, and one from the 201X- stock. I would expect, of course, that priests be competent to celebrate both forms since, as Fr. Z aptly puts it, priests are ordained for the Church, not for a book.

  3. If it is done correctly and grows organically from what came before, meaning it will most likely be something similar to the 65 Interim Missal there are many Traditionalists and Conservatives (by the time it actually happens) that will embrace it. The generations will change and the Traditionalists of tomorrow will be softer, less bitter than those of today. I think it will be more the progressive side that will be kicking and screaming when they have to learn a Latin Ordinary for Mass as Vat II’s, SC demanded. And we must remember it is not only the Holy Father that has said the 62 Missal had not been abrogated but a panel of Cardinals back circa 1985. Perhaps its’ use in some places was suppressed but in others it was not.

  4. The emperor has no clothes!

    This endless debate over versions of the roman missal borders on nonsense. I have no problem with people stating their preferences and their understanding of liturgy….but the Missale Romanum 3rd edition is the reformed missal and as legitimate a part of the church’s Traditio as any of it’s predecessors. Vatican II made clear that Popes can’t simply do what pleases them. They must act in concert with the entire apostolic college in undertaking that which effects the entire body of the church. Primacy of jurisdiction affirms the pope’s right to confirm the brethren. He can also exercise leadership in boldly teaching what the church believes. But the one who is the vicar of The One who came not to be served but to serve cannot lord it over “subjects”. We are not subjects, we are holy and priestly people and all called to participate in the mission of the church. Since all of us offer the church’s sacrifice of praise all of us need to receive what the apostles propose. It cannot just be imposed or we go back to lording it over subjects.

    Those who propose uniformity are not respecting the tradition. Those who do not acknowledge the need of distinct communities within the church–whether parishes or religious communities to include local customs in it’s worship are also disregarding the tradition. I believe they need to overcome their fear that something disastrous is going to occur unless everyone worships In one particular way. For century after century in the medieval era the church survived–even triumphed at times–despite a woefully inadequate understanding and experience of the Mass. Was it celebrated validly? Surely it was. But was it known or perceived as the summit and source of the Christian life?

    Vatican II helped us to put away notions of merely reading or saying or hearing Mass. It led to putting away the practice of a rubricism that threatened to make the church’s sacred liturgy into a lovely and majestic…

    1. Vatican II made clear that Popes […] must act in concert with the entire apostolic college in undertaking that which effects the entire body of the church. Primacy of jurisdiction affirms the pope’s right to confirm the brethren. He can also exercise leadership in boldly teaching what the church believes.

      I think that’s a reduced reading of Lumen Gentium 22 (among others).

      [T]he college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.

      1. More of a ‘reversed reading” than a reduced one. The author of the quote wants to infer that the Pope must have the assent of the Bishops to exercise authority, whereas the actual situation is that the Bishops must have the assent of the Pope to exercise their authority. Their seems to be a misunderstanding of what is meant by “the order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church”. The operative word is “subject”…. they, the Bishops ,are what the Pope has supreme and full power over, they are not the “weilders” of that power. They are the subjects of that power. That is why the final proviso is added: “provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. The head has full control over the body, but they have to be understood as one entity.

      2. JH – I thought it was “subject” vs. “object”, as in subject-verb-object.

        Ordo autem Episcoporum, qui collegio Apostolorum in magisterio et regimine pastorali succedit, immo in quo corpus apostolicum continuo perseverat, una cum Capite suo Romano Pontifice, et numquam sine hoc Capite, subiectum quoque supremae ac plenae potestatis in universam Ecclesiam exsistit, quae quidem potestas nonnisi consentiente Romano Pontifice exerceri potest.

        But I could be completely wrong in my understanding of the use of the word “subiectum” (“subject”).

      3. “Subjectum” in this usage would be more functional… it refers to something which has been spoken of in a preceding propositional statement. The propositional statement is “the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church”. The passage beginning with subiectum quoque defines the bishops “with their head, the Roman Pontiff and never without that head” as a being what is spoken of (subiectum) as “the Church” in that immediately preceding proposition.

    1. No, he is the Vicar of Christ in that local church. We all know the bishops must act together with the successor of Peter, but do we all know and accept that the successor of Peter has an obligation–within the primacy–to act together with the successors of the apostles? That is the rub.

      1. Could you explain what you mean by saying that the Pope has an obligation to act together with the other bishops?

        LG 22 says that “the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. […] The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.” So the college needs the head.

        But LG 22 also says that “The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”

        So what do you mean when you say that “the successor of Peter has an obligation–within the primacy–to act together with the successors of the apostles”? I’m not challenging the statement, I’m trying to understand it.

      2. …the successor of Peter has an obligation–within the primacy–to act together with the successors of the apostles?
        This is a difficult relationship to define with the kind of vague language used here. For example:

        a)What is meant by “obligation”?

        b) What does “within the primacy” mean without being self-referential as the nature of that obligation is what defines primacy?

        c)What is meant by “act together”? Is that the same as agreeing or reaching a compromise? Are there situations in which the Pope and Bishops “act together” in producing something which not all Bishops agree with? Is unanimous consent implied?

        I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but there has to be an aknowledgement that not everyone agrees on how these questions can be answered, so it’s difficult to answer your question as to whether we “all know and accept that the successor of Peter has an obligation–within the primacy–to act together with the successors of the apostles.

        We could say that we both “know and accept” and still mean two totally different things.

  5. John Drake :

    Well, it seems to me the reformed Mass is said everyday…the Novus Ordo. And good Pope Paul VI specifically allowed the “unreformed” 1962 Mass under an indult pretty quickly after the NO was put into practice.

    Since you reference this indult often, would you please share it? And no, I’m not going to google it. You should.

      1. But John Drake wrote “1962” and the “English” or “Agatha Christie” indult is definitely not that as it is for the use of the Missal “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).”

      2. Use of the 1962 Missal (without 1965/67 revisions) seems to come from the 1984 indult – which expanded the English Indult to the whole world and specified that only the 1962 Missal in Latin be used.

        What I find interesting about the English or “Agatha Christie” Indult is that it seems to create a situation where the old Missal would survive in perpetuity alongside the reformed Missal. The indult was granted in response to a petition created by various British Catholic and non-Catholic intellectuals (Agatha Christie was an Anglican, for example) who feared that a major living tradition of the western world would be lost with the suppression of the old Mass – this wasn’t a group of older Catholics unable to adapt asking for a temporary indult that would die with them. This was a group of people asking that a major part of their cultural patrimony be preserved for future generations. The petition and indult would have been pointless had it only been meant as a temporary measure.

      3. Also, in case anyone is curious, this article on the New Liturgical Movement features the full text of the original 1971 petition framed by a new petition: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2007/01/british-declaration-in-support-of.html

        It is the part in quotation marks that begins with “If some senseless decree were to order the total or partial destruction of basilicas or cathedrals, then obviously it would be the educated – whatever their personal beliefs – who would rise up in horror to oppose such a possibility….”

  6. Quite a number of the comments above seem not to have grasped the main point of the post, or wish to discuss something else. The translation from the Italian does make some of this essay a little hard to read in English, so let me take a stab at it.

    The author is saying that 1962 is not licet within any normal definition of the term. Its use was abrogated.

    He is saying that appeals to the notion of its having “never been abrogated” are self-serving claims.

    He is saying this has created a farce in which future attempts to legislate anything definitive will face a stumbling block.

    My response: I think he underestimates the ease with which the Pope and the curia will do whatever they want to anyway, regardless of intellectual or legal consistency.

    1. I would very much like to see how Benedict came to the conclusion that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated. I’d also like to see the 1985 (?) report of the Cardinals who apparently came to the same conclusion.

    2. The author is saying that 1962 is not licet within any normal definition of the term. Its use was abrogated.

      Uh, no. He speaks to the historical situation. Certainly the use (within the limits of the law) of the 1962 Missal is not illicit at this time, which is why he does not say that.

    3. Rita;

      I do understand the overall point he was trying to make. I think he’s wrong on some specific things, but I do understand what he wants to say.

      I’m always intrigued by the part of SC that says

      “For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.” (SC 21)

      Intrigued because it essentially says that at least one purpose of reform is to remove things which have intruded on the liturgy or those which are unsuited to it… in other words, the “things” needing reform (or removal) can come from outside the liturgy (things which have intruded) or they can be parts of the liturgy itself which have become unsuited with the passage of time. The reforms of the NO would seem to be of the second variety. But since both of these things happen over time, it is acknowleged in SC that no reforms will ever be permanent… but it also says nothing about the nature of that “reform”…. if the problem is that things have intruded, wouldn’t a suitable remedy be to return to a point prior to the intrusion? I guess my point is that the author posits that a ‘reform of the reform’ is necessarily going to involve the creation of a further revised version rather than a return to a previous one…perhaps even something as simple as the current version unchanged, but legislatively removing those things that have intruded.

  7. Were the Twelve (Eleven, I mean) and Paul subject to Peter? (Or, worse, “subjects of” Peter?)

    If not, why not? And if not, might the original church not been merely an ecclesial community? Is the notion of being a “subject” a timeless idea, or a cultural one?

    The Orthodox will never (is that clear enough?) agree that any bishop is ever the “subject” of any other bishop.

    Sorry, but this notion will not re-evangelize anybody. And yet it seems so important!

    Mark Miller

    1. Up until the final third of the second century, there was no subjection of one bishop to another. There was not a monarchical system in Rome itself until that time. More than a century earlier, Peter exercised nothing like supreme, or even metropolitan jurisdiction. The arrangement was conciliar well until the second half of the second century.

      In the final third of the second century, the number of Christians in Rome was growing. Orthodoxy and administration became issues. The Christians looked to the model closest at hand – the empire – to organise themselves.

      In order to give a (revolutionary) monarchical system validity, Irelaeus of Lyons fabricated the list we know today as Linus, Cletus, Clement etc. It worked.

  8. #4 Samuel Howard
    The prudential decisions of a Council on matters of discipline do not bind any longer than the Church decides that they do. Otherwise we’d still be bound by the Tridentine decision prohibiting the Communion of lay people from the Chalice.

    Trent did not prohibit communion from the cup. The decision on offering the chalice to the faithful was left to the Pope. In 1564 Pius IV gave permission to Germany and several other European countries for communion from the cup. Successors of Pius IV revoked the permission.

  9. I quote again the late and great Pierre Jounel:

    What would you say to those people who don’t want to know the Missal of Paul VI, and to those who, while respecting it, regret that it was imposed to the exclusion of the Tridentine Missal?

    I would say to them that they use computers, that they live with the instruments of the culture of their time, and that they have no reason to get stuck on the 1570 date when the Missal of Pius V was promulgated. Why should the liturgy be frozen then, when it had been periodically renewed up to that date? These people lack historical knowledge. Msgr Lefebvre was absolutely convinced that the ancient formula for Confirmation goes back to the time of the apostles, when in fact it only dates back to the 13th century.

    Jounel then goes on to demonstrate how Paul VI followed exactly the same procedure with his Missal as Pius V had with the Missal and Breviary in 1570, Clement VIII in 1595 with the Roman Pontifical, Pius X with the psalter of the Breviary in 1911, and Pius XII with the Holy Week rites in 1955. In all these cases, the previous usage was abrogated and replaced by the new. This is the Church’s constant practice.

    1. I use a 2010 computer at a table from the 1950s with chairs from the 1980’s in a kitchen from the 1990’s in a house from the 1890’s. I doubt the maker of my table ever imagined people sitting at it using laptop computers, but that doesn’t make it less functional than a table built today.

      People can live completely in their own time and still enjoy the fruits of past generations. One can live entirely in this time and still find the old Mass relevant for today, just as i think my 1890’s house is still quite relevant.

  10. Jack – sorry but your attempt at analogy fails badly. The communal eucharist of the church is a living “verb”; not a “noun” e.g. 1890 house, 1950 table, etc.

    Also, don’t think that we use the term “functional” when describing our communal eucharist.

    Liturgy is not a “museum” piece but a living action of a viable community that grows, changes, dies and rises. Someone on another blog used a more interesting image – our eucharist is not like a group of folks who re-enact the Civil War battles.

    In fact, you might want to go back to the original post – there was a very important distiction and explanation about the difference between an object (the 1962 Roman Missal in your hand) and the legality of using that Missal in a community eucharist. Guess if you reject that distinction, then no amount of explanation will get through and you will fall into the same “legalisms” as this writer suggest the SSPX have.

    1. The act of liturgy isn’t an object, true, but the form is to an extent – The prayers of the OF and EF are an object that people use to accomplish an action. People bring them to life by using them.

      Current celebrations of the 1962 Missal aren’t reenactments. Comparisons to Civil War reenactments do not work unless you honestly think people are trying to recapture a particular time period. Your typical Latin Mass is exactly what you describe – the living action of a viable community that grows, changes, dies, and rises. Celebrations of the Eucharist are bigger than the exact form used.

      1. Quite honestly I am getting tired of all the talk about the EF. It is not the rite of the majority of Catholics in the US. I also think the attempts at comparisons are futile. We have a lot of work to do to bring the liturgical reforms of Vatican II to fruition. I think the feedback of the US Bishops to Rome that there was very little interest in the EF should have been heeded.

      2. Sorry, Jack – prayers are not “object” – they are actions. Again, read the original post – he clearly intends to show that the “reform” was a movement from doing prayers to “praying the liturgy”. You miss or do not understand what he is saying.

        As Mike Burns says below – agree completely. But, given the current Pope and his wishful thinking, feels like we are swimming upstream.

      3. Bill, words in a book don’t do anything by themselves. An OF missal isn’t some entity that does anything by itself independently of the people. Prayers don’t pray themselves, people pray them. Perhaps I don’t understand you or the original article.

        Mike: I too am tired of it, people who oppose the EF are just trying to create division where none needs to exist. The EF could have just been a quiet minority all along. The number of EF Masses that have popped up in the wake of SP, though still small in number, suggests perhaps the Bishops were wrong when recommending there was little to no interest in it.

  11. “Traditionalism is a rebellion against Paul VI, against his theology, his Mass, his seminary reforms, against the new direction of the Church that he set in motion.”

    Ah… who wants to turn back the clock?

  12. #43 Jack Wayne
    Mike: I too am tired of it, people who oppose the EF are just trying to create division where none needs to exist. The EF could have just been a quiet minority all along. The number of EF Masses that have popped up in the wake of SP, though still small in number, suggests perhaps the Bishops were wrong when recommending there was little to no interest in it.

    Jack,
    The Bishops were not wrong. Their survey showed very little interest in the EF. Your suggestion that they were wrong is one of the problems we have with accepting that which we do not want to accept. The problem I have with some who want the EF is that they do not accept the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. I am not accusing you of this since I don’t really know you. I do not oppose the EF since I think in God’s kingdom there are many mansions. However, I find that a lot of the discussion at times degradng to both forms. They are both here and we need to stop analyzing each with our own agendas. Pick your form, celebrate your faith, and may you be transformed by the saving life, death, and resurrection of Christ!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *