:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Saturday, February 14, 2004 ::

"Discussing the Liturgy and Various Contrastings" Dept.

[Update: This response was written on Wednesday and lightly retouched today before posting. -ISM]

Despite taking a couple of weeks or longer to respond to some previous posts by Kevin Tierney, he sure jumped on my response to him from the other day rather quickly. You can read into that whatever you want but I find that factor rather interesting. His words will be in black font and my previous words in blue font. Any sources I quote will be in darkblue font.

Responum ad Shawnum ad infitium

ROTFL, okay, I deserved that one :)

My good friend Shawn has contributed to the debate that never ends with his latest response. I am not one to disappoint, so here is my latest. The respones will be noted by KT2 as my previous post, SME2 as Shawn's latest, and KT3 as my rebuttal. One day Shawn will aggree to a system of formatting without coloring, as I hate colored posts honestly. :-)

I use the colouring to make it easier to follow the different threads. So far (present company included) I have exactly *one* complaint about that out of all the people who read my weblogs and who email me with questions and/or dialogue requests.

KT2: Note Shawn, I did not say things were perfect.

SME3:Noted.

KT3: We shall honestly see if Shawn is noting this as we continue through the response, as I believe a few times, he was quick to jump the gun and go for the kill-shot.

We shall see indeed :)

KT3: While that's an admirable trait in debate, at times it leaves you very open if you miss.

Agreed. But I do not miss too often despite assertions to the contrary. And some of those misses are not the arguments themselves but instead targeting the wrong village if you will. That is not to dismiss the latter by any means of course but no one bats a thousand on these kinds of discussions. But I digress.

KT3:I don't really think we need to debate if I think Shawn has hit or miss, as me and Shawn are debating too many topics as is. :-)

Point taken. This is an interesting "keister-saving" approach you take so all I will note here is that the presumption of a "miss" should never be made without reasonable demonstration to support it.

KT3:As far as your latest essay to Mr. Palm on Tradition being opposed to Novelty, I will admit I haven't read it yet. You have given this essay quite a bit of hype, therefore, I want to be able to actually give it a serious read when I do sit down and examine it.

Well, it was requested to me by David on numerous occasions to respond to it and it took a fair amount of work to get it to read correctly. I had the work reviewed before publication and the consensus was that it was done very well. And of course it should only make sense that I will mention when a particular writing of mine covers a subject of discussion because I do not want to reinvent the wheel. The time is not there for it and even if it was that would not be time well spent.

KT3:However Shawn, numerous times you have said the main issue behind the attendance drops were social concerns, and especially a loss of catechesis.

There was a loss of catechesis prior to Vatican II. If people of that time were properly catechized, then the fallout would not have been so significant. But when (i) no differentiation is made between the essence and the accidents{1} (ii) the myth of the Church "never changing" are inculcated for approximately seven generations, and (iii) all teachings and customs are defacto held as of equal weight, when (iv) mixed in with the various other factors external to the Church's situation...well...it all adds up to one serious decline.

For problems were bound to crop up when (i) differentiations are made -and not necessarily in a correct manner (ii) the mentality of "the never-changing Church" runs smack into the reality of a Church that does what was taught to be not thinkable -not to mention historical proof that soundly confutes previous confessional assumptions, and (iii) the inability to make proper distinctions between essence and accidents -coupled with the view that all teachings and customs are of equal weight. All of this leads to the view that because certain changes were made in one area (of practice) that they could also be made in another area (of teaching).

This is what simmered under the surface until the central event that defined the post-council period occurred -and from which all reported declines can be shown to be congruent with.{2} But I will not go over that here.

KT3: I agree there has been a tremendous drop in the catechism department, yet does not one realize that the faithful's primary teacher was the liturgy?

The liturgy does not stand in a vacuum though. And it used to be that those who were not fully initiated into the Christian mysteries were not present after the prayers of the faithful but were dismissed. (There is a trace of this in the current catechuminate approach during Lent.) The nature of liturgical formulation will encompass certain ambiguities that catechesis is intended to reinforce. If the reinforcement is not there, no liturgy by itself can adequately instruct the faithful.

I have in the past demonstrated several ambiguities in the older liturgy in the same manner that Tridentine partisans have with the revised liturgy. (Some of this made it into my treatise if memory serves.) The point is, no liturgy stands in a vacuum apart from proper catechesis. This should be self-evident to any Catholic but alas so often it is not.

KT3: This was one of the main reasons Pius XI instituted the Feast of Christ the King in the liturgy, so people would continue to learn the doctrine, those who didn't read the encyclicals.

I have long been under the impression that the feast you refer to was instituted to remind people of the Social Kingship of Christ in a time when secularism was starting its rampant scorching of the cultural landscape. But as the latter is not incongruent with what you say, there could be multiple meanings here.

KT3:Furthermore, this apostolate has listed many times prayers of the Novus Ordo, comparing them with the prayers of the Tridentine Mass.(Out of simple charity I will give this one to him.)

The only legitimate comparisons of this sort that can be made are between the typical Latin edition texts of each Missal. Comparing ICEL translations of the Revised Missal to the English translations from the older missal is hardly how a proper contrast can be drawn - in large part because many of the prayers in common are identical when the Latin texts are compared.

KT3:In this comparison, those in the Novus Ordo have been found wanting in teaching with the clarity of the liturgy from before.

See my previous comments. I pointed out in my treatise a few areas where the Revised Missal clarifies certain points that are problematical in the Tridentine Missal if the latter is read at face value without the aid of proper catechesis. But that is another subject for another time perhaps.

KT3: Not surprising, those areas where the teaching isn't stressed in the liturgy, are those problematic areas where there is a catechical emergency today. This is something those of your persuasion continually and consistently forget Shawn.

The only problems with this theory Kevin are that (i) there are more areas of problem than whatever examples you set forth and (ii) you cannot compare a botched ICEL translation with an English translation from the older missal and have the kind of parity that you seek. The fact is, the ICEL translations are very banal -no one denies this. Many of the prayers of the two missals are the same -including the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. Yet from reading the ICEL translations, one would not know this.

Perhaps there is no more egregious example than the Memorial Acclimations in the anaphora prayers. What is supposed to read simply "the mystery of faith" (mysterium fidei) is translated "let us proclaim the mystery of faith." This is interpolation of a text not direct translation. But it gets even worse because the acclimations are made into banal statements of fact rather than the inspired declarations they are supposed to be. Here is what ICEL says the text says:

Priest: "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith."

People: "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again."

or

Priest: "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith."

People: "When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come in glory."

or

Priest: "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith."

People: "Lord, by your cross and resurrection you have set us free. You are the savior of the world."

It all sound pretty banal really. But the Latin text properly translated says something different. Right after the consecration of the chalice, this is what is supposed to be said:

Priest: "The mystery of faith." (Mysterium Fidei)

People: "We proclaim your death, O Lord, and confess your resurrection, until you come." (Mortem tuam annuntiamus. Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias)

or

Priest: "The mystery of faith." (Mysterium Fidei)

People: "When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death until you come Lord." (Quotiescumque manducamus panem hunc et calicem bibimus, mortem tuam annuntiamus. Domine, donec venias)

or

Priest: "The mystery of faith." (Mysterium Fidei)

People: "Savior of the World, save us! By your cross and resurrection you have set us free." (Salvator mundi, salva nos, qui per crucem et resurrectionem tuam liberasti nos)

The difference between the actual text and the ICEL "translations" are striking since properly translated, each is a response to the mystery of faith: a response *to* Jesus *in* the Eucharist!!! From the ICEL mistranslations and interpolations though, the average person would not realize this.

What I noted above is but one of numerous examples of why comparing English translations is not how you properly ascertain which prayers are "clearer" and which are not. (In my view the above examples seem to be the strongest arguments that there was an agenda on the part of at least some of those at ICEL.) Each missal has certain points which are clearer than the other when the texts are properly translated. As I have gone over this before in more detail, that is all I will note on it at this time.

SME2: Why then did seven out of every eight persons asked about the vernacular liturgy say they preferred it to the Latin liturgy around the time of the liturgical switch??? If over eighty percent of the faithful *preferred* the vernacular liturgy (and this was the case contra 'trad' historical revisionism to the contrary), then the theory that the changing of the liturgy was the cause of the decline receives a pretty fatal gunshot blow to the head.

KT3: Shawn believes he has landed quite a shot here. First, I'd request he re-produce the poll, and include all the variables, controls, and numerous others that deal with in polling.

It is interesting that Kevin would make these requests (none of which are unreasonable I might add) but his side is amazingly unwilling to make similar disclosures when it comes to the polls that they cite. Why is it that they never seem to want to go the extra step that Kevin requests of me here??? The reader can muse on that for a moment but not without me mentioning one stock statistic that Kevin's side likes to reiterate over and over again in their polemics against the revised missal.

A so-called "statistic" that they like to refer to is a Gallup poll from about five years ago which (they claim) says that "70% of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence." The actual poll being reported on here said nothing of the sort.{3} However, the figure was (and is) reproduced uncritically and is *still* bandied about by many promoters of the Tridentine liturgy as some kind of shibboleth which validates their cause.

Nonetheless, despite never seeing a frank admission from your side on the flagrant abuse of the above statistics -not saying that *you* have done this mind you- I will seek to dig the information up that you have requested Kevin. I touch on it in my essay response to David but not with the actual statistical figures. At the same time though, can I request from you an admission with regards to the background information on the poll that I refer to above??? If you do not know it I will gladly supply it and you can look into the matter for yourself.

KT3:2.) Are these people still attending Church? (While the future would be tough to prove in followup, how about at the present time of polling.)

I am sure a good percentage of them would be deceased now. (My father for example was among them.) And there were also some like my father who later attended the Latin mass because things in our dioceses got so bad for a while that the Latin mass took on a new appeal. It also did not hurt that they celebrated it reverently unlike when he was growing up.

My point was that *at the time of the change* most people by an overwhelming percentage preferred it and even today there is still quite a majority that do not care for the Latin mass for various reasons. It would be the heighth of uncharity to ascribe this to sinister motives or a lack of faith any more than it would be to tar and feather those who prefer the Latin liturgy as defacto subversives, "medievalites", or schismatics.

KT3:3.) Did they attend Church before the liturgy switch?

These are good questions. The answer to this one in the majority of cases is "yes." (There was even if memory serves a sixty percent favour for the vernacular among people sixty years of age or older in the 1970's -the preference in other words spanned every age demographic.)

KT3:4.) What is meant by "prefer?" What about the liturgy is prefered?

It could be any variety of reasons.

KT3:5.) Are those who "prefer" the liturgy showing a correct understanding of the liturgy? (this will become more important as we continue)

This is also a good question. However, it works the other way too. I have seen a lot of Latin mass attendees who have a very one-sided and incomplete understanding of the liturgy. Likewise, I have seen vernacular mass attendees who also have a one-sided and incomplete understanding. In terms of percentage of attendees (the only way this could be fairly weighted) I cannot say I see much of a difference.{4}

KT3:, Shawn knows polling is not the most reliable and accurate tool, and I could certainly recomend the book Mobacracy if he wants to put so much credence in polling.

Neither polling nor statistics are reliable tools Kevin. (They are too easily manipulated.) Yet I see from the "trads" no shortage of polling data and attempts to argue from statistics to assert their positions. You cannot challenge me on this and be silent when your comrades do the exact same thing. Now then, if you want to challenge me on this and also challenge them then I of course have no problem with it. At the very least such a situation would be on level playing field. But if the challenge is only one-sided...well...I think you know what I would think of that.

KT3: While polling is helpful, there can be a problem of relying too much upon it.

True.

KT3: I would respond another way, in that if 7 out of 8 people prefer smoking crack, does that make it right or sound policy?

Good use of the reductio ad absurdum method. But the reverse is also true: just because 1 out of 8 people prefer something does not make their preferences sound policy.

KT2:So, if even from it's imposition, we see these disastarous results, Shawns call for "faithfulness and fidelity to how it was originally planned" are honestly very very hard to take seriously. It is putting a kiddie sized band-aid on a gaping flesh wound. From a distance, looks like it's ok, but a close look, and one finds there are serious dangers.

SME2:The decline preceded the so-called "Novus Ordo." The primary cause of the decline also preceded the "Novus Ordo." And there was a one percent drop in church attendence from 1965 to 1968. My point here is that there were deeper fundamental problems involved. I discussed this in in my essay response to David Palm. I also discussed another aspect of those problems at this link for those who are interested."

Did I just hear a pin drop??? ;-)

KT2: I must say the liturgical movement that St. Pius X launched, beame hijacked with the Novus Ordo, and now their fruits have been swept away to absolute disaster.

SME2:As I have already dealt with the premises that Kevin uses to undergird this assessment -and pointed how they do not withstand scrutiny- we have no reason to view his assessment as a sound one. Of course he has the right to his opinion on the matter. However, those who are looking for more than simply opinion will have to consider other options than the one he is offering on this point.

KT3: Ok, then simply show me where you've dealt with this Shawn. Don't make such statements without backing them up.

Fair enough, read my essay response to David Palm. I touch on it in the latter. I doubt you will find much in my weblog archives as I only recently decided to discuss this issue publicly.{5}

KT3:DI'm not asking you to produce a massive new treatise, just give me all the valid information you believe I need to have a discussion with the Sovereign Thane of Rerum Novarum. :-)

I will strive to gather that information as time affords it. The problem of time constraints for the next three to six months will not be negligible in this endeavour however.

KT3: Yes, a one percent drop. There were problems before the Novus Ordo, as I already granted. Notice my argument from before my friend, that with the Imposition of the Novus Ordo, this problem magnified expotentially, as it is not denied that this period and 10 years after saw a rapid expotential decline in Mass attendance, to where less than one-third of Catholics attend Mass.

The figure is higher than that. If memory serves it is less than one third who attend mass every week. If you factor in those who attend two or three times a month, it is about fifty percent maybe a touch lower. And when bringing up the fact that most Catholics attended mass every week fifty years ago, there are underlying factors to that statistic as well which bear consideration -and virtually never get it I might add.

KT3: To consistently deny such a rapid and sudden change had anything to do with the decrease is honestly to avoid reality.

I go over this in my essay response to David Palm. As far as mass attendance goes, it leveled off in the mid to late 1970's at roughly fifty percent and maintained at about that level with very little in the way of decline ever since.{6}

KT2:As far as the 1975 GIRM, again, Shawn misses the point. The rubrics of GIRM cause a scandal to those in the Church today!

SME2:How do these cause scandal??? (Referring to the rubrics where the priest receives communion before the faithful and alone breaks the bread.) What causes scandal is those who do *not* follow the GIRM and who do these things that Kevin points to. I presume that is what he must be intending to say here.

KT3: The fact that the Novus Ordo rubrics have become too "Conservative" for the majority of the Church today, something that was warned about time and time again before, and even prelates or other movers and shakers within the Church have stated the radical change left the impression anything could be changed.

Two points (i) obviously if rubrics are not followed any attempt to enforce them will be seen as a curbing of options -which is erroneously ascribed as "conservatism" (ii) the two hundred odd year axiom about the "unchanging church" created a backlash among those who knew just enough about church history to be dangerous. (As they could see this dictum for the prevarication that it was but not be sufficiently equipped to properly understand various dynamics involved.) Once the axiom of the "unchanging church" is crushed to powder, it changes the paradigm completely.

For the same people who know just enough history to be dangerous also know just enough theology and philosophy to be dangerous. Opposing them by proposing the absurdities of "catholicity means uniformity" or "the Catholic Church rejects novelty" will only gain traction among those who are ignorant of history, theology, and philosophy. (Or who bury their heads in the sand and pay little if any attention to these factors apart from token gestures.)

If the above points sound crass, I apologize but this is a fundamental issue that needs to be emphasized. This is also why movements towards widescale "restoration" are naive. That does not mean that there are not areas to restore of course. However, without taking a ressourcement approach to these matters, the proposals made end up being sometimes quite nice in theory but not applicable in reality. This is the biggest problem I have with the approach taken by most (but not all) Tridentine partisans: the seeming inability to see things as they are and not as they would like them to be. This applies not only to the present day but particularly to the period preceding the Second Vatican Council.

Just as pseudo-"progressivists" so often think that the Holy Spirit was not present prior to 1965, those who call themselves "traditionalists" tend to have a romanticized view of the liturgy in the centuries prior to Vatican II rather than a realistic appraisal of it. Much of the reason is emotional attachment which of course affects the ability to look dispassionately at the subject matter. This does not mean without having genuine affections of course. To quote my favourite academic orientalist (Fr. Robert Taft SJ) on the study of liturgy:

Christian liturgy, eastern or western, must be studied with the same seriousness, objectivity, and historico-critical distance with which men and women of science study anything. Objectivity and distance do not mean without faith and love. They do mean without hypocrisy, self deception or dissimulation, and without spinning the webs of myth (here I use the term in its pejorative modern sense) and neo-gnosticism.

Very seldom have I seen Tridentine partisans approach the subject of the liturgy in a detached manner and without the problems that Fr. Taft speaks of above. I believe that you Kevin strive to avoid these things. However, there are others whom you affiliate with (Ian Palko, Seattle Catholic,The Remnant, Latin Mass Magazine etc.) who do precisely this very thing which Fr. Taft is critical of -and which I have long been critical of.

This is the reason I emphasized the guilt by association element early on in our dialogue. I want to develop this a bit at the current time because I believe we are on more solid ground now in our dialogue to be able to revisit it briefly.

Based on my observations of your interactions with other members of the Inquisition early on, I presume that some of it was that you (by your own admission) were new to "traditionalism" and were (as a result) uncritical of whom you aligned yourself with. Since that time, there have been some refinements and adjustments. There has been public disassociation with Mario Derksen and Novus Ordo Watch. There also appears to be more scrutiny of organizations such as the CAItanic and its wayward Captain Queeg. But many of the others who have varying degrees of imbalance remain associated with your apostolate. This will inevitably result in most people being inherently suspicious of your efforts in this area. I say this as a friend not as an adversary -though indeed we do have differences of opinion in some areas as the readers well know.

I also recognize that it would not be appropriate to simply say "jettison those affiliations" without providing in their place some viable alternatives. For that reason, I would recommend the following as better allies to associate your apostolate with:

Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei

Society of St. John

Adoremus Society

Fraternal Society of St. Peter

The first three have been linked to my weblog Rerum Novarum longer than The Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog has existed. I mention Adoremus because they could be seen as a kind of "ecumenical jihad" ally in this area. The Ecclesia Dei Coalition is self-explanatory of course. The Society of St. John is a Tridentine apostolate who seeks a renewal of the culture hence they appeal greatly to me for that reason. (And I believe they would also appeal to you for that reason.)

The FSSP site was not linked to Rerum Novarum because for a long time they did not have a very good site. However, in my various writings contra false "traditionalism" they have been mentioned favourably. (Particularly in my treatise where I have had their email addresses as contact links for interested readers for over three years now.)

Having just checked out the FSSP site when retouching this this response, I see they have completely revamped the site and it is now pretty impressive. Hence, I will be adding them to my weblog links at Rerum Novarum in the coming week as time affords.

In the meantime, I recommend the above links as Inquisition-proof if you will. This does not mean that we concur completely with them of course. But any disagreements that exist are much more amicably dealt with then when with disagreement with the sources you currently affiliate with.

For We at Lidless Eye have no doubts whatsoever as to these organizations in the areas of (i) true fidelity to the Holy Father (ii) true obedience to the magisterium of the Church, and also (iii) their sense of objective fairness. The same cannot be said for the sources you affiliate currently with -or some of the persons which I noted above.

This is merely a suggestion for upgrading the profile of your apostolate and providing it with greater viability in the eyes of others. The latter being achieved, it would greatly enhance your position as a contributor to the arena of ideas. Anyway, muse it over and see if what I note here does not make good sense to you.

KT3: The fact that there are roughly 10 different ways to say one Mass(by doing the math of adding all the options of the propers, scripture readings where certain parts may be ommitted, etc.) what's not to stop the faithful that everything else can be legimately "reformed" to where these clear absues are indeed good ideas for reform, since in the past, that which was liturgical abuse became litrugical norm.

You have hit on part of the problem here: the inability of most people to make distinctions. However, a couple of points need noting. First of all, a liturgical abuse is anything that is out of conformity with prescribed rubrics. I am not saying there has to be rubrical rigidity but the liturgy as prescribed has legitimate variations in it. I would argue that there are too many of them{7} but nonetheless those who use approved variations or who interpolate where the rubrics allow for it{8} do nothing wrong. The problem is going outside of these boundaries.

KT2: And let's note that even Paul VI's predeessor, John XXIII, thought it a dangerous idea to remove Latin and downplay it in favor of the vernacular.

SME2: As the language of the Church sure. This is probably the document you are thinking of:

Pope John XXIII: Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia (On the Promotion of the Study of Latin)

The use of Latin in the liturgy is barely touched on in the above text which is more concerned with the study of Latin in seminaries, etc. along with the retention of Latin by the Apostolic See. Latin did fall out of favour in the seminaries; however, the Apostolic See issues all of its documents in Latin as the primary text with few exceptions. As far as communication goes, all texts are drafted in Latin before translation to the vernacular and even the Revised Roman Missal itself was issued in Latin.

The problem is that the decline in the study of Latin was not as perceptible in the early 1960's as it was by the late 1960's. There were also plenty of people in the Curia who tried to pretend that things were not as bad in this area as they really were. I go over some of that in my essay Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' from almost three years ago and will not reiterate those points again here.

KT3: I was not limiting myself here to mere Latin in the liturgy, yet Latin in general.

I was not accusing you of that limitation; however I know what most who reference that Constitution tend to do with it. A bit of anticipation there and nothing more -remember Kevin your views are not necessarily aligned with the views of most who call themselves "traditionalists." You vary from them in some respects (some of which are refreshing variations I might add). But in other areas there are similarities. This is why I made the recommendations above about changing certain affiliations.

KT3: A downplay on it's study, and a thirst for novelty to promote the vernacular over what once was there, will eventually lead to the scenario where removing Latin from the liturgy would be a feasable idea.

Of course the question of what viable purpose Latin serves in this day and age anyway (for the vast majority of people) never seems to be asked. In the days when Latin itself was the vernacular tongue -as in much of the first millennium- then yes, its usage makes perfect sense. In the days when people actually *understood what was being said* - as in much of the first half plus of the second millennium-{9} then sure, it still makes sense to use it.

In the days when every educated person who could read and write spoke and wrote Latin as well as their vernacular -which was arguably the case until even the seventeenth century or so if not a tad longer,{10} then we are on tenuous ground here but it is still somewhat viable. But the two hundred years prior to Vatican II -when Latin understanding by the average Catholic in the west evaporated like morning dew- frankly was a period where illogical pastoral policies ruled the roost. This is what happens when what is promoted is an agenda which is fundamentally propagandistic.{11}

The distortions that took place in that period -and subsequent to Trent but predominantly since approximately the early eighteenth century and the most furious parts of the Jansenist crisis- were (unfortunately) illogical and counterproductive in not a few areas. This is even admitted to (albeit indirectly) by some of those who call themselves "traditionalists" who approach this issue without blinders on.

KT2: We can appeal to the very man who opened Vatican II, and show that the mass vernacularization (or vulgurization) of so much in the Church today was not a wise idea, and indeed, John XXIII warned about such.

SME2: Since that Apostolic Constitution was concerned mostly with (i) preserving Latin usage by the Holy See in its documents (ii) preserving the use of Latin in the training of seminarians (iii) teaching the sacred sciences in Latin, I fail to see where Kevin really scores many points by bringing this up.

KT3: It has been an admitted problem for some time that permises two and three you list here Shawn are not being accomplished. Latin is a relic for most seminarians.

I agree. But what interests me is the root and matrix of problems, not mere effects from them. (An example of said "effect" being seminarians not learning Latin.) The effect has a cause as all effects do. My interest is the cause and dealing effectively with it. Once that is done, there will be a positive change in the effect over time.

KT3: So that was excactly why I mentioned things. I wasn't merely focusing on liturgy. Indeed, my claiming of the words "So much in the Church" would lead one to conclude we are talking about more than liturgy. I please request a more careful reading, and perhaps merely asking questions if you don't understand a position I'm staking, rather than attempting to go for the kill, and utterly stalling the dialogue.

If I was "going for the kill", I would not have taken so long to respond to you :)

KT2:It is up to Shawn to demonstrate:

1.) The definicies in prior methods
2.) Why the problems were so serious something new had to be established.
3.) What the new procedures meant to accomplish.
4.) Have the new procedures\approaches had substantial success, to the point where the change was justified to begin with?

SME2: I dealt with the first two points in my essay Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' three years ago. The fourth point I have dealt with in many message board posts and weblog entries. The third point is difficult to discern what Kevin is asking for. I am not an advocate for the western clergy being bereft of knowing Latin -indeed I think they all should know at least liturgical Latin. (Otherwise it is difficult to sing the ordinary part of the mass in Latin.) I wish that I knew Latin a lot better than I do and I also have nothing against those who want to promote the study of Latin. The end is laudable; however the means leave a lot to be desired at times.

KT3: As far as point 3 Shawn, show me where you dealt with the issue. Just point me to a few links here in an e-mail, comment box, whatever, and we'll work from there.

You ask a very broad question Kevin. Specifics are needed to deal in a reasonable manner with it. Also, I have only had comments boxes from Haloscan for about the past three months. Prior to that I had Klink comments boxes for about four months but there was a two or three month gap between them. In short, the most that could be accounted for here comments box wise would be three months maybe four and I am not sure I have gone over that subject in that time period.

Nonetheless, I *have* discussed it many times over the years in the public arena. And I go over it to some extent in some of my essays -particularly my treatise if memory serves but there were countless other dialogues as well-{12} I refer to it here in passing.

KMT3: My third point was merely asking, take communion in the hand for example, what was the point of changing back to communion in the hand. If it was simply because it's old that's antiquarianism, which was condemned by Pius XII, and if I remember, you became quite offended beforehand when I accused you of it.

The entire "antiquarian" canard frankly annoys me. I see it as an expedient to not deal with reality. Pope Pius XII was *very* precise in how he applied the term. Unfortunately, most who call themselves "traditionalists" in my experience apply this term as recklessly and widely as they often do the term "modernism." (And yes, "modernism" has its own precise definition and application as well.)

I have gone over the hypocrisy of how Catholics deal with Protestants and Orthodox many times before -one example of which can be read HERE. The antiquarian argumentation of most self-styled "traditionalists" mirrors the approach taken by confessional Catholic apologetics towards the Orthodox at the above example. I find such duplicity to be hypocritical to put it frankly.{13} But that is all I will say on this currently.

KMT3: For a case study, we can take the switching of discplines from communion on the tounge to communion in the hand. Note I'm not saying one is a sacrelige and one is not, but that the change in discpline in the reform was justified as sound policy or not.

You have been very good at making this distinction (which is to your credit).

KMT3: Furthermore, nowadays these are both legit options, so let's compare the two.

Fair enough. But what is the real reason for problems today. I have no interest in windowdressing Kevin, only the root issues that undergird respective weltanschauungs. For it is only then that any real progress be made rather than superficial covering-over of deeper problems.

KMT3:This is the same thing we have been doing with the prayers of the Novus Ordo vs. the Tridentine Masses.

These are apples and oranges for reasons I cover earlier in this post.

KMT3: The Church gives us options, so let's compare those options. Yet those on the opposite side of the fence, seem to be advancing true integrism, as they won't even allow a comparison of the prayers, as this "fosters disobedience" to the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. Poppycock I say.

I do not believe *I* have ever advanced that argument. Indeed my treatise -which has been on the internet in divers forms for almost four years now- has had in it exactly what you are referring to here. I do not compare the exact prayer wordings per se -as I am not about to do what I am critical of Jake of doing- but I do compare and contrast the two liturgies section by section and point out the strengths and weaknesses of each -along with various factors that often mitigate accusations of "strength" or "weakness" from partisans on both sides of the liturgical divide in the Latin rite. I am hardly going to cut my own throat by criticizing you for what I myself have done except in how it was done. (As in this response here.)

KMT3:Now as far as the "way mass was celebrated" in the 50's and 60's, if there is truth to Shawn's statement(which there certainly is, but I believe he wants to overhype as to bolster his case) legitimate liturgical reform curbed these abuses, and if he were to believe the Traditional Mass is celebrated reverently (in general, there are of course notable exceptions) today, well, that's what authentic liturgical reform does. Can't have it both ways old friend.

SME2:Nice try my friend but there is only one small problem with this thesis: historical facts do not sustain it.

KT3: Historical Facts do not sustain what Shawn?

Historical facts do not sustain your stance on the true state of the liturgy prior to Vatican II. There is also the fact that the 1962 Missal by the standards set down in Sacrosanctum Concilium is in some respects deficient.

KT3: Your statement that "Celebrate it as it was in the '50s and '60s and see how few people come a flocking Kevin." Again, we've already noted there is a steady trickilng of those towards the Indult or other traditionalist movements, to where it is notifiable, to where it obviously ISN'T celebrated "the way it was in the 50's and 60's." If this is so, then we have an aspect of authentic liturgical reform.

A tiny one sure. But what was laid down in most of Sacrosanctum Concilium does not apply to the Tridentine liturgy of 1962 -the most commonly celebrated form of the Tridentine liturgy. Granted some of the Revised Missal does not apply either but the latter is significantly more applicable to the intentions of SC than the former.{14}

KT3: As far as your response to Mr. Culbreath, I don't see where it has relevance to what we're talking about Shawn. The closest I see is where you mention the Society and the Missal of John XXIII, or that there were problems in prayer and liturgy before Vatican II.

The context was Jeff making statements on many points which history does not bear witness to. I chose that link at random not having time to search my whole archive -and not wanting to link to stuff that would run overlong since that response was already long enough. But I would recommend a careful reading of what I said to Jeff. There is a lot more in that post than one might casually presume.

KT3:Though as Jeff Culbreath said Shawn, you need to stop painting every traditionalist as some imaginary SSPX idiot you once thought you went to Church with.

The fact is Kevin, I have probably been involved with a lot more of these discussions over the years than either you have or Jeff has. With all due respect to the both of you, I spent almost fifteen years amongst the Tridentine movement -seventeen if you count a roughly twenty-eight month period where I sporadically attended mass and then only Tridentine liturgies. (But I do not count that period at all.)

I have in short attended more Tridentine liturgies than you and Jeff Culbreath combined. I have encountered a broader spectrum of self-stated "traditionalists" than what you two imply -as well as coming across in my life more self-styled "traditionalists" of various outlooks and temperaments than the two of you combined.

Heck, we can even throw Mark Cameron into that equation too and I still have attended more liturgies and probably met more people from a cross-section of the Tridentine movement than you guys have. Not only have I attended the Tridentine liturgy and come across such a broad range of viewpoints in Tridentism but I was also as a young adult an altar server and a backup sacristan as well -as well as being involved in other parish functions.

When it comes to reading, I have read more books, essays, periodicals, magazines, and pamphlets on these themes in my life than the vast majority of self-styled "traditionalists" out there -spanning the spectrum of the Tridentine movement from the most fringe to the most "mainstream" of publications. I highly doubt that any of you three have read as copiously or as broadly on these subjects as I have -again with all due respect.

Of course the problem with mentioning all of this is that it appears to be boasting and I do not want to come off that way at all. But the idea that I am "stereotyping" based on "idiots from my past" -implied in your statement and in Jeff's- makes noting these things for the record necessary. Indeed these assertions would be amusing to me if not for the fact that they are so far removed from reality as to not allow for me to take them seriously.{15} This does not detract in any way from my great respect for Jeff -or even from my respect for you. But it must be noted here so that there are no illusions on this matter on the part of either of you.

The reality of it is that I see the full picture -or at least the significant majority of it- and most of those I dialogue with on these subjects do not.{16} Nor in my humble opinion do you or Jeff see as much of the picture as I do. This does not mean of course that we cannot dialogue (indeed we are here and Jeff and I often have) or that I cannot learn from you guys (indeed I always am learning). But I bring more to the table on these issues than either of you seems to realize.{17}

I think what is involved here is that you both approach this from your respective paradigms and view them as the "normative template." Then when I address the broader spectrum of self-styled "traditionalist" views, where my statements differ from your view (or from Jeff's) is then construed as me chasing "mythical SSPX phantoms", etc. But I digress.

KT3: I agree there were problems, I agree liturgy needed reform(as there has always been a liturgical reform movement in the 20th century.)

There had been a liturgical movement to varying degrees since the days of Trent. The modern phase of the movement started in the nineteenth century and was fueled by the Benedictines. The magisterium only started gradually involving itself in the twentieth century starting with Pius X and becoming much more involved in the pontificate of Pius XII. And the most significant involvement was the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium at Vatican II and the revised missal which followed that template -albeit not always as closely as it arguably should have.

KT3: I just take the position that the liturgical reform has not succeeded since the change in approach with the Novus Ordo, and that, paraphrasing Klaus Gamber, had the Council Fathers who voted on Sacrosanctum Concillium known the Novus Ordo would be the end product, they would've rejected the Constitution.

This is quite a generalization. We do not know what they would or would not have done -such belongs to the area of speculation. And speculation is not how we best address these issues since it involves a degree of nebulosity coupled with subjectivist interpretations (of said nebulosity). All of this essentially gets us nowhere.

Is there merit to what you say above (in referencing Msr. Gamber)??? I suppose so. But I say this with one caveat: if the Fathers knew that what they voted on would have resulted in the Revised Missal and that the pope would have approved of it in that form, they all if they were faithful sons would have given concurrance. This is after all what Cardinal Ottaviani did. Like him, the other Fathers of the Council were aware of these teachings from Mediator Dei (MD):

The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof...[MD §59]

[T]he sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See... [MD §60]

Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation...[MD §63]

I have referenced this encyclical letter many times -most recently in a response to statements of Fr. Fessio which can be read at Rerum Novarum. As far as the passages above go, those who call themselves "traditionalists" who are not careful can easily run aground in such comparisons.

Pope Pius XII not only held that the Sovereign Pontiff alone has authority to make the changes that he sees fit to the sacred liturgy (cf MD §58) but that said approved changes represented "new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation" (MD §63).

Does anyone at Restore the Church or the vast majority of those who call themselves "traditionalists" take the same approach to the sacred liturgy viz. its regulation and what that regulation signifies as Pope Pius XII of venerable memory did??? Please pardon me if I express doubts that you guys do.{18}

If you want to counter that there are plenty of defenders of the Revised Missal who do not take this approach either, I will not quibble with that at all. But this is the basis for how the faithful Fathers of the Second Vatican Council would have approached the liturgical question.

Taken by itself and apart from papal confirmation, you may well be right about what the Fathers who voted on Sacrosanctum Concilium would have done had they seen the finished product. But if the pope promulgated the missal, they would have submitted their private opinions to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff in accordance with the teaching of Pope Pius XII of venerable memory -and their own teaching on the matter in Lumen Gentium §25.

KT3: So Shawn, tell me what about your response to El Camino real has any relevance to this discussion.

See my previous comments.

KT3: Now over to Shawn's Response on my "turning back the clock" post.

SME:I never said of course that the "Novus Ordo" was not without its problems. But replacing one irreverently celebrated liturgy with another irreverently celebrated one...well...we already did that. And considering that at least the Revised Roman Missal has areas of significant improvement to it -and yes I will continue to assert it- it is not true progress to try to restore the older liturgy indescriminately. Rather, as I have argued at Rerum Novarum what is needed is restoring to the Revised Roman Missal some of the Gallican elements that were inadvisably removed. The intention was to cut down on unnecessary and useless repetition (ala 25 signs of the cross during the canon of the mass) but this became a case of simplification ad extremis unfortunately.

Here we agree that there is a problem of irreverence, in any liturgy. Now we get to the true point of liturgical reform, it's primary emphasis is not changing what is there in the rites, but giving people a deeper understanding of what is currently
there.

The true point of liturgical reform is to recognize that "The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded" (MD §59).

Part of "adapt[ing] and accomodat[ing] to temporal needs and circumstances" is changing the rites insofar as all development encompasses a degree of external modification. I go over the subject in my essay response to David Palm when the subject of development is discussed and will not reiterate it here. Those principles by logical extension also apply to the sacred liturgy.

You do not get a deeper understanding of A by changing it to B.

You are not showing a very good grasp of the concept of development of doctrine here my friend. But this response is too long to unpack that point with the detail that it would need. And I have to get back to business matters now as this post took about two hours to write and format in one sitting. If not for this being an off day, I would not even have gotten to starting a response as of now. Thankfully, God created the "day off" on the ninth day and it was good eh??? ;-)

Notes:

{1} One example of this is that it used to be viewed that missing mass on Sunday was akin to breaking one of the major outlines of the ten commandments (murder, adultery, etc). What was bound by the authority of the Church (hearing mass on Sunday) was equated to the divine law (keeping holy the Sabbath day). When the authority of the Church declined, the glue that coerced some of the earlier high mass attendance statistics came apart.

It is also worth asking the question of whether higher attendance at mass out of fear of burning in hell really shows a *preference* for that liturgical form over the later form. (Where attendance is not as high but the same petrification of hellfire for missing mass is absent.) I am not intending to downplay missing mass here by any means, only to point out a variable that is not often considered in the mass attendance equation.

{2} And no, this was not Missale Romanum in 1969.

{3} Dr. Art Sippo, 'Matt1618', and I dealt with this among numerous other areas in a coauthored project on the Mass written about three and a half years ago. The readers can see that project if interested -it is linked to Rerum Novarum and on a list of most of my essay projects.

{4} Obviously in terms of sheer numbers there are but that is because the Latin mass attendees are about 1-2% of all Catholics.

{5} My reasons for refraining from discussing this matter for a long time was a concern that people who do not read what I say carefully -which is most who call themselves "traditionalists"do with my work- would make certain presumptions that were not warranted. The delicacy of the matter also was a factor but I finally decided to discuss it and quantify explicitly where I stand on the matter. Those who decide to misrepresent me can therefore answer to God for their sin. (My conscience on this subject rests much easier now that it has been put out in the arena for consideration.)

{6} There was a noticable decline after the sex abuse came out to the mainstream news but some of that was due to a post 9-11 increase in attendance -some of which was as facile as is par for the course after major tragedies.

{7} Mainly in the opening rites and also the number of anaphoras. I have no problem with multiple anaphoras though I do think that the often used second anaphora should be restricted to weekday masses which do not fall on a major feast day or (perhaps) for special occasions such as weddings or funerals. On Sundays and holydays, it should not be allowed as an option -indeed that was what was originally intended in its addition to the list of approved anaphoras. I say this not to denigrate the prayer but instead for other reasons I have outlined in my treatise and other places.

{8} Lest you think this is problematical, the Council of Trent actually decreed it and this provision was seldom if ever followed. (Certainly I never saw it at the SSPX where they try to be "more Pius XII period than thou" in a matter of speaking.)

{9} In the lands where the Latin was the root language of local dialectes, the tongue was still roughly comprehended. Obviously in the Orient this would not have worked and indeed this is why the missions failed so miserably in those parts of the world.

{10} Some would draw this into the eighteenth century. I am not sure if I concur with that but it may be applicable here.

{11} Whether its utilizers knew this or not, that is what it was.

{12} And on this point I may be mistaken as to *where* it was covered. Not having the time to go through (i) a thousand odd pages of essay writings (ii) a year and a half's worth of blogging -not to mention (iii) no longer having access to over a thousand dialogues spanning a near five year period (February 1998- December 2002) due to a computer crash in 2002, all I recall offhand is that I discussed it many times.

Some of it made it into my essays and perhaps in my weblog discussions. But the period I discussed it the most (1999-2001) is no longer documented at this time -though if I spend a few thousand dollars a tech *may* be able to extract those files from my harddrive. (Along with lost pictures, business documents, etc.) Right now though, the latter is not an option I have available to me unfortunately. If and when it is, I will be happy to go through them and pull out what I can find if such files can actually be retrieved.

{13} So that there is no misunderstanding here, I do not accuse Kevin personally of hypocrisy.

{14} And yes, I wrote on this subject too in essay form. I am sure there are some blog posts that discuss this too but I cannot recall offhand where in the archives they are.

{15} And that is not only the self-styled "traditionalists" but even those who are often referred to as "conservatives" or the self-styled "progressivists."

{16} It does not matter if they are SSPX or Indult: the same is so often the case viz the broadness of their view.

{17} Though Jeff is more cognizant of this than you are as he and I go back to about 2000 and Steve Ray's old message board where we first encountered one another. I believe his status as a recent convert impairs to some extent his vision on this. As a cradle Catholic I will of course have a different perspective on it than my good friend does. This is par for the course to some extent as I see it.

{18} I refer the readers to this earlier post and recommend that they read it and the accompanying link if they have not already.

:: Shawn 9:15 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Responsum ad Hibernius:

Hello Hibernius:

The Haloscan message box limits made it expedient to respond to you here rather than in the message boxes. For those not aware of what I am referring to, Hibernius responded to the post located HERE. The subject matter was the assertion made by your weblog host that seven out of eight people preferred the vernacular liturgy to the Latin one around the time of Missale Romanum. Hibernius' words will be in black font.

Just a small query on grounds of logic (I am a "conservative" who attends Indult Tridentine MAsses when I get the chance; I regularly read this blog).

It is good to count you (i) among the Indult Latin mass attendees{1} and (ii) among the readers here. Hopefully I can in time count you among the readers of Rerum Novarum if you are not already. I spend a ton more time there than I do here and the diversity of topics makes for easier reading and interaction.

As I told TheistGal in one of the message boxes, I spend less than five percent of my alloted blogging time at this weblog. I anticipate that even that five percent will fall in the upcoming months as my already limited time for these endeavours will be even more limited still. And in that circumstance, it is my main weblog that will get the bulk of my attention to the detriment of my ancillary weblog projects.

I'm not sure the "80% preferred the vernacular when it was introduced" argument is conclusive because of two possible extraneous factors.

I will respond to them in sequence.

Some may have thought that since this was what the Pope & Bishops wanted it would be wrong to express a preference for what went before.

I will admit without hesitation that this may have been true in some cases. But I believe a lot of people who attend the Indult make the mistake of anachronism by presuming that (i) what they receive today is what people received prior to Missale Romanum and (ii) most people like to actually understand what it is that they are praying. When you have people praying the rosary or other devotionals *during mass*, there is a serious problem of understanding involved.

I say this not to impugn those who did this of course (since they at least made the best of a bad situation), but the kinds of arguments often made in support of the Latin liturgy often include attempting to defend these kinds of practices.{2} Nor does the claim that "well they can use a missal with Latin and English side by side" really cut the mustard because the Vatican did not really want these kinds of vernacular missals used. That is a fact of history and is not beneficial to the agenda of those "traditionalists" who promote vernacular missals as the way to bridge the Latin divide.

Most people do not know (and Latin mass polemicists will not tell you if they do know) that the Vatican as late as 1898 put these kinds of missals on the Index forbidding their use. Only when it became clear that some publishers were going to make them anyway did the Vatican change its approach to "these are forbidden" to "well, okay they are allowed but *we* will regulate their publication."

If some readers see a parallel here in what was done with the practice of administering communion in the hand by some clerics in some dioceses prior to Pope Paul conceding this option to the local ordinaries, then I must commend them for their astuteness. And of course since the vernacular missals were the fruit of disobedience much as communion in the hand was, I ask supporters of the former if they will be consistent in either supporting the latter in like manner or rejecting the former as they reject the latter. And arguments about "expediency" or "accommodation" or any other argument along these lines to support the use of vernacular missals can easily be appropriated by those who rally for communion in the hand. But I digress.

My point in raising the statistic Hibernius -the idea of illustrating the absurdity of self-styled "traditionalist" tendencies to argue from statistics notwithstanding- is that we cannot underestimate the number of those who were ecstatic and not just a little pleased that the mass was finally comprehendible to them. Remember, we are dealing with *average people* here not scholars like Von Hildebrand or clerics who are trained in Latin as a second language. Of course *they* understood what was being said but often this made it difficult for them to understand what those without their understanding of Latin had to go through. Even though Catholic schools taught Latin language, most people still did not properly understand the liturgy. Pretending that this was "not a problem" or even lauding such misunderstandings as somehow "desirable" or "preferable" is so grossly unbiblical that it is not even funny.

One of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council was to take a more explicitly biblical approach to many issues, one of those was the issue of intelligibility and the problems that "praying in a tongue" have for those who were not instructed in said tongue. Pope Paul referred to one of St. Paul's letters in his allocutions before promulgating the Revised Missal. I remind you of 1 Corinthians xiv,6-19 which applies in so many ways to what Latin had become: a tongue. I will not quote that passage here for the sake of brevity but encourage you to read it from your Bible after finishing this note.

Latin had become a tongue in the west in the centuries prior to Vatican II. This situation contrasted sharply with when it was at one time the vernacular language of the Roman Empire,{3} the foundation of the Romance Languages,{4} the language of learning,{5} etc. By the eighteenth century, Latin was well on its way to being no longer intelligible to most Christians{6} but instead a tongue.

If we judged by participation in the liturgy, then we would have to go back to about the eleventh century when public participation in the liturgy was dwindling due to unnecessary (and damaging) overclericaliing. But the problem at this time was not unintellibibility as Latin was the root language of the tongues of virtually every western European land.

Intelligibility was not the problem here; instead the imbalanced perception of the liturgy as a "one man show" (that man being the priest) relegated the laity as functional spectators rather than full participants.{7} The restoration of the vernacular to the liturgy had come of age even by the time of the Council of Trent where the Fathers of Trent strongly considered this approach. (By that time it was due.) However, it was not to be for many reasons.

Ultimately the Fathers of Trent decided that it was not expedient to do so at that time -a pastoral judgment which...well...I do not want to appear to speak ill of my ancestors so I will simply note here that they decreed it, the pope approved of it, and therefore the judgment was binding. And it remained that way for four hundred years -at least two hundred years longer than it should have.{8}

(2) It could have been welcomed as a novelty, with banality and limitations only evident in the long term.

Perhaps but at the same time, the intention was a liturgy that -while predominantly vernacular- was nonetheless more of a hybrid. The problem here was that the vernacular became subject in some ways to the same approach that communion in the hand from the 1960's and vernacular missals of the late nineteenth century had but with one significant exception: the bishops of dioceses throughout the world petitioned the Holy See for the use of the vernacular for the whole mass because of lay demand for it. This unlike communion in the hand or the use of vernacular missal usage was therefore a more legitimate appeal and thus a more legitimate approach than the other two that I noted.{9}

It is not in the interest of many in the Tridentine movement to admit to this (the lay demand for the vernacular) so they sweept that fact under the rug and pretend that it was changing the liturgy that was a primary culprit in the problems we have seen on a widescale since 1968 -and traces of it prior to that time. I have long argued that this view was naive and ignored the wider picture but did not want to delve into the real primary culprit behind the Church's decline.

Only recently did I change my mind and do this{10} out of the realization that if it was not discussed then the illusions spun by groups like Una Voce (and pseudo-"scholars" like Michael Davies){11} will continue to fool people. Msr. Calkins goes over these kinds of problems in his speech which I noted below -and to which I may touch on in my upcoming response to Kevin.{12} We shall see.

(As Chesterton put it, York Minster in flames is very exciting , but the ruins are less exciting than the unburnt York Minster.)

If the state of the liturgy at the time was as majestic as York Minster, this analogy would carry more weight. But there were still confessional illusions afoot that papered over the actual problems with platitudes. But as I could go off on another tangent here, I will resist the temptation (due in no small part to my time constraints: gotta tend to business matters shortly).

In summary, your points are certainly possible viewpoints of this matter; however, whatever the reasons for *why* the vernacular preference was expressed, it was expressed. The problem with taking the approach of "well, maybe they thought this was the preference of the clergy so they went along" is just as applicable in the case of Pope Paul VI's decreed liturgical reforms as those of Pope Pius V before him. I trust that at the very least we can agree on the latter point.

Notes:

{1} We at Lidless Eye are and always have been supporters of the Indult apostolate as a viable and valuable charism within the Mystical Body of Christ.

{2} The problem is, the liturgy was in decline even before the so-called "reformation" and even some Tridentine promoters admit to this. I refer you to this link as it encapsulates in many ways how I view the liturgical debates -and why I see the kind of Tridentine restoration promoted by groups like Una Voce as patently naive.

{3} Roughly from the third through the eighth centuries.

{4} From the ninth through roughly the eighteenth centuries.

{5} Until at least the Renaissance if not a tad longer.

{6} Excluding the Orient -the evangelization of which was a miserable failure *because* of the insistance on imposing the alien Latin tongue on the Orientals rather than "give up debate points to Protestants" and opting for the use of the vernacular in the Orient.

{7} To the extent that they can participate fully of course. Please do not read this as a blurring of the distinction of ministerial priesthood and the universal priesthood of believers.

{8} I can understand the rationale that reinstituting the vernacular in the sixteenth century would have appeared to have been a concession to heretics (the Protestants). But by the eighteenth century, the divisions had settled in and (in my opinion) much of the damage of the French Revolution could have been avoided if the Church had restored intelligibility to the liturgy (and actuoso participatio of the faithful) in the eighteenth century.

A lot of the Enlightenment philosophies -such as those of Kant, Comte, and the like which ridiculed passivity and considered it inferior with action (even for the sake of action it seems) would have received a swift kick in the keister. But the problem with the Counter-reformation period was that it was a period of defensiveness rather than evangelical offense; reactionary rather than proactionary if you will. In that climate, nothing less than a full and unequivocal denunciation of anything remotely resembling either Protestantism or Enlightenment philosophy was inevitable.

I am sure that the Angelic Doctor and his master St. Albert the Great were cringing from heaven at this policy but that is how the magisterium chose to regulate the application of the divine law at that time. Thankfully, they have chosen to go in a different direction and express not a hint of returning to the ill-advised policies of the Counter-reformation period.

{9} I can see the wheels turning in Kevin's mind as he reads this point :)

{10} Though not the first time I discussed the subject; nonetheless I go over it as one of the themes in this essay.

{11} Briefly on Michael Davies

{12} Then again, maybe I will not: gotta keep Kevin guessing after all ;-)

:: Shawn 7:30 AM [+] | ::

************************************

I have substantially completed a response for Kevin which will be posted either Friday morning or Friday evening. In the interim, I want to put up for reflection the link to a speech delivered by Msr. Calkins to the Latin Mass Society back around mid 2001. While I do take issue with a few of his points (mostly minor stuff), I can safely say that I concur with so much of what he says here to safely identify myself with the sentiments expressed.

This can serve as a prelude of sorts for the upcoming response to Kevin -though I must note to my friend that if he tries to anticipate based on this link how I will respond he will most likely not succeed. (Except when I say "but I digress" of course.)

[Update: Right now it appears that I will not get to posting it until probably Saturday afternoon or Saturday evening -possibly Sunday morning. Some unanticipated circumstances arose which require tending to before that entry can be properly adjusted and formatted. I apologize for the delay but To make lemonade from these lemons, I suppose I could point out that the postponement will give this entry more time to be discussed if those who read this weblog want to discuss it. -ISM (2/13/04 6:05am)]

:: Shawn 3:04 PM [+] | ::

************************************

"Responsum ad Tiernum" Dept.

Some interesting points were brought up last month and this month at Kevin Tierney's Restore the Church weblog. I always chuckle when I read that title because the obvious question comes up: restore it to what exactly??? Before one can call for a restoration of any kind, they have to know where the Church has been and have to be able to see the whole picture. Unfortunately, I have a maxim that I use when referring to history and those who call themselves "traditionalists." It proves its value so often that I am tempted to call it not a maxim but instead a proverb. But for the sake of being irenic, I will not talk about it at this time.

With regards to the Church, she has grown and (in the process) adapted and accommodated herself to changing times and circumstances as long as there has been a Church. (Be it since Good Friday or since the days of Abraham, etc. however far back you want to take it.) This of course does not mean that there are not some things to be regained of course. Indeed as a ressourcement minded person I would be slitting my own intellectual throat to claim that there was nothing to regain or restore if you will. But the question moved from the abstract to the realm of reality is what interests me.

For it is reality where most people live (or at least try to). And that reality is often much blunter than the rhetoric of idealistic people from any outlook tend to want to admit to. Even Archbishop Lefebvre (may he rest in peace) recognized at the time of the Second Vatican Council that there was a dichotomy between principles and their application.{1} However, I do not want to lose my train of thought here so I will at this time move from that point onto Kevin's comments. His words will be in black font.

Short Response to Shawn

I'd first like to say with good thanks that Shawn has given some praise to this group weblog, for looking to uphold honesty. I thankfully accept his praise, and give my sincerest thanks.

Well, I do give them to you Kevin and also to Brendan Dougherty. I do not know much about Corey Zelinski -certainly not enough to comment on- and Jacob Michael is a mixed bag of sorts. (Kind of "hit and miss" in my opinion.) I could comment on Ian Palko but out of charity will refrain from doing so. So in short, yes there are comments and criticisms. It would not be fair for me to only paint one side of the picture without the others of course.

Here at Restore the Church, we make no bones about partiality, but we make a huge issue out of objectivity. Despite today's warnings from the secular culture, one can be partial, yet objective. There were a few things that Shawn has commented on at this weblog, so I felt the need to issue a few brief words.

Ok.

KT1:While there were some instances where there was intregrism, our way or the high way, I find this problem is all too often overhyped, as a trick to demonize the past. The faithful simply didn't see all these dangerous problems(in general) until they were told such problems were there.

SME1:Maybe I need to get my friend Art in here to write on the manner of celebration of the liturgy in the 1950's and 1960's. There were many problems and they were hardly imperceptable. But Kevin does not seem to realize that his argument here can be turned on him because the same can be said for the parishoners in the churches where the Revised Missal is not celebrated with due respect. Most of the problems that those who pay more than token attention to would point out are not seen as such by the parishoners -or even in many cases by the priests themselves. But I digress.

KT2: Note Shawn, I did not say things were perfect.

Noted.

KT2: And surely you can always find some problems, we are fallible men dealing with the worship of an infallible God. Furthermore, the problems with the Novus Ordo essentially began from the beginning.

I do not disagree with this but another dynamic that you are not noting was the largest culprit in the problems we have seen. I recently wrote on this in my essay response to David Palm. See The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard in the side margin of this weblog for details.

KT2: If we're going to have the most revernt of services, chances are we'd see them most faithful when they started.

If the well had not been poisoned prior to the imposition of the Revised Roman Missal, then sure I could agree with this. But alas that was not to be.

KT2: Yet we didn't see a huge jump in attendance around this time, or even after this time, as the Novus Ordo became the normative liturgy of the Church. Instead, we saw an expotential decline, whereas before the Novus Ordo, there simply was not one.

Again, I dealt with this in my essay response to David Palm. I also dealt with it on this weblog last year.

KT2:The role that the changing of rites had in the plummeting attendance cannot be explained away, as much as Shawn valliantly tries to do so on some occasions.

Why then did seven out of every eight persons asked about the vernacular liturgy say they preferred it to the Latin liturgy around the time of the liturgical switch??? If over eighty percent of the faithful *preferred* the vernacular liturgy (and this was the case contra 'trad' historical revisionism to the contrary), then the theory that the changing of the liturgy was the cause of the decline receives a pretty fatal gunshot blow to the head.

KT2:In the end, there are those far more qualified than myself and him will ever dream to be, who have concluded that even though they agreed with validity of the Novus Ordo, it's imposition ran not a few out of the Church.

Again, if seven out of eight preferred the vernacular liturgy, there must be another explanation for the drop in mass attendence.

KT2:So, if even from it's imposition, we see these disastarous results, Shawns call for "faithfulness and fidelity to how it was originally planned" are honestly very very hard to take seriously. It is putting a kiddie sized band-aid on a gaping flesh wound. From a distance, looks like it's ok, but a close look, and one finds there are serious dangers.

The decline preceded the so-called "Novus Ordo." The primary cause of the decline also preceded the "Novus Ordo." And there was a one percent drop in church attendence from 1965 to 1968. My point here is that there were deeper fundamental problems involved. I discussed this in in my essay response to David Palm. I also discussed another aspect of those problems at this link for those who are interested.

KT2: Furthermore, if we haven't figured out just excactly what the Novus Ordo is supposed to be after 40 years, with now a reform of the original Reform coming along(where the perfectly logical missal of 1962 being there,m with perhaps an indult for the vernacular, perhaps),

There were many problems with the 1962 Missal. (I have discussed this many times and will not reiterate them again.) The 1965 Missal was an improvement over it but even the 1965 Missal still had areas that needed tending to. I refer the readers to an entry further down this weblog where Cardinal Ratzinger assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the Revised Roman Missal. If I had more time, I would supply the links but alas I do not so do a search for it.

KT2: I must say the liturgical movement that St. Pius X launched, beame hijacked with the Novus Ordo, and now their fruits have been swept away to absolute disaster.

As I have already dealt with the premises that Kevin uses to undergird this assessment -and pointed how they do not withstand scrutiny- we have no reason to view his assessment as a sound one. Of course he has the right to his opinion on the matter. However, those who are looking for more than simply opinion will have to consider other options than the one he is offering on this point.

KMT1: In other words, celebrating Mass by the rubrics of the NOVUS ORDO causes this kind of difficulty(that a priest receive communion first, that he alone break the bread, etc), how can one say with a straight face that those who adhere to the Pre-Vatican II Traditions have it so good in the Church today?

SME1: I will not at this time go into the difference between the apparent confusion here of Tradition and tradition -as I have written on it many times before. As far as breaking of the bread goes, the 1975 GIRM is reasonably clear on this.

KMT2: I'm not stating these things are Apostolic traditions, as if they must be held by the faithful. I'm saying, sound tradition renders it not wise to depart from it.

I can to some extent concur with this. But the examples Kevin provides are not allowed by the magisterium. Those who do this are not being faithful to the GIRM either in what it explicitly states or obviously infers (when parallel passages are considered in proper context).

KT2:As far as the 1975 GIRM, again, Shawn misses the point. The rubrics of GIRM cause a scandal to those in the Church today!

How do these cause scandal??? (Referring to the rubrics where the priest receives communion before the faithful and alone breaks the bread.) What causes scandal is those who do *not* follow the GIRM and who do these things that Kevin points to. I presume that is what he must be intending to say here.

KT2:So how can those who hold to the Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Traditions, practices, and such be honestly said to be in great position in the Church today? If a revernt Novus Ordo is such a cause of controversey, what about the Traditional Latin Mass?

There is no controversy over the reverent "Novus Ordo" except by a handful of very loud and dying out liturgist types - and the clergy whom they are able to manipulate.

I really tire of the canard about THE Traditional Latin Mass when what is being referred to was the mass of the city of Rome prior to 1570. There were numerous other western rites all of which were celebrated in Latin. The Roman form of the liturgy was not the only Latin mass. For this reason, it would be advisable for Kevin to refer to the old Roman Missal liturgy as "the Tridentine Missal", "the Tridentine liturgy", or "the Tridentine Latin Mass."

Any of these three would be fine with me since they avoid improper generalizations.

KT2:Sadly, Shawn missed the entire point of what I was saying. Hopefully I am making myself a bit more clear in this response. I also went into detail on this in my third round of responses to Shawn McElhinney, which I am unaware of a rejoinder, so perhaps me and Shawn are talking past each other on some points.

This does happen to us at times unfortunately. I trust though that the discipline of the dialogue will help in eventually getting to a point where we do not do this. Contrary to a lot of presumptions to the contrary, it is not easy to properly dialogue. I explain the intricacies of the dialogue HERE for those who are interested.

SME1: There is no merit whatsoever to the claim that celebrating the Revised Missal by its prescribed rubrics leads to the problems that Kevin and his associates assert. As far as "have it so good" I wish I could acquire a wayback machine and take Kevin back to the 1980's and 1970's. If he thinks it is bad now, he has no idea. The liturgy is celebrated a lot better now than it was in the 1980's or the 1970's. That however does not mean that it is where it needs to be though but then again: I was unaware that anyone said that it was.

KT2: Of course my friend, should we really just settle for "relax, it could be worse."

Of course I am not saying this at all. My point is only that sometimes one needs a bit more perspective on an issue than they actually have. That is all.

KT2: Is it really sound political argumentation for one to say "Don't worry about Bush's destructive policies, it could've been Bush, or could be Dean!" Is the lesser of two evils always a route one should take?

Not always. (Do not get me going on Bush or we could be at this all week Kevin.)

SME1: What is this "every pope before John XXIII" stuff??? Latin was reasonably understood by people in countries with romance languages even after it was no longer the west's vernacular tongue.

KT2: And let's note that even Paul VI's predeessor, John XXIII, thought it a dangerous idea to remove Latin and downplay it in favor of the vernacular.

As the language of the Church sure. This is probably the document you are thinking of:

Pope John XXIII: Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia (On the Promotion of the Study of Latin)

The use of Latin in the liturgy is barely touched on in the above text which is more concerned with the study of Latin in seminaries, etc. along with the retention of Latin by the Apostolic See. Latin did fall out of favour in the seminaries; however, the Apostolic See issues all of its documents in Latin as the primary text with few exceptions. As far as communication goes, all texts are drafted in Latin before translation to the vernacular and even the Revised Roman Missal itself was issued in Latin.

The problem is that the decline in the study of Latin was not as perceptible in the early 1960's as it was by the late 1960's. There were also plenty of people in the Curia who tried to pretend that things were not as bad in this area as they really were. I go over some of that in my essay Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' from almost three years ago and will not reiterate those points again here.

KT2: This is something I find many in the attack traditionalist mode seem to forget.

Perhaps so but since (i) I attack almost no one{2} and (ii) the source you are undoubtedly referring to was not for the most part concerned with liturgical Latin{3}, this is not the "smoking gun" that you seem to think it is.

KT2: We can appeal to the very man who opened Vatican II, and show that the mass vernacularization (or vulgurization) of so much in the Church today was not a wise idea, and indeed, John XXIII warned about such.

Since that Apostolic Constitution was concerned mostly with (i) preserving Latin usage by the Holy See in its documents (ii) preserving the use of Latin in the training of seminarians (iii) teaching the sacred sciences in Latin, I fail to see where Kevin really scores many points by bringing this up.{4}

KT2: Furthermore, the emphasis was not one what language, but speaking to "modern man." In essence, modern man is no more intelligent than an Aquinas or such.

On average, modern man is more intelligent than his predecessors. The simple fact that literacy rates are so much higher now than they were throughout most of history alone substantiates this. (It is difficult to learn if one cannot read and write after all.)

KT2: Furthermore, he still has the same spiritual needs, and at times, yes, new pastoral approaches to those spiritual needs must be undertaken. But this is not a mere validity argument.

True.

KT2:It is up to Shawn to demonstrate:

1.) The definicies in prior methods
2.) Why the problems were so serious something new had to be established.
3.) What the new procedures meant to accomplish.
4.) Have the new procedures\approaches had substantial success, to the point where the change was justified to begin with?

I dealt with the first two points in my essay Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' three years ago. The fourth point I have dealt with in many message board posts and weblog entries. The third point is difficult to discern what Kevin is asking for. I am not an advocate for the western clergy being bereft of knowing Latin -indeed I think they all should know at least liturgical Latin. (Otherwise it is difficult to sing the ordinary part of the mass in Latin.) I wish that I knew Latin a lot better than I do and I also have nothing against those who want to promote the study of Latin. The end is laudable; however the means leave a lot to be desired at times.

For it does not help to engage in the kind of confessional propaganda whereby the canard is advanced that the catholicity of the Church in any way depends on the use of Latin. There are traces of this in the above Apostolic Constitution. It was probably possible to pass this off on those who did not have much knowledge of these areas in the 1960's but someone such as myself is not fooled at all by it. The myth that "catholicity demands uniformity" was definitively destroyed at the Second Vatican Council and the interventions of the Melkites and other Eastern Catholics.{5} Unfortunately most self-styled "traditionalists" do not realize this and they continue to think they can stick Aladden back into the lamp. But I digress.

KT2: So Shawn, let us please read my remarks in their proper context, as you know quite well there's more to the idea of "The Church now speaks to modern man" than changes in mere languages. Does that say the Church failed to speak to mankind before this time period? That is a slap in the face to those who come before us, for being so ignorant of the world around them.

Sigh...more generalizations. If we really want to get technical about it, in the era when most people were not educated and relied on the word of the priest on these matters, the facade of insisting on one language was workable. (After all, those that were educated spoke and read Latin as at least a second language.) Nowadays when (i) more people are educated and literate (ii) very few of them know Lati, it is (iii) foolish to pretend that the paradigm on this matter has not shifted and shifted dramatically.

SME1:Celebrate it as it was in the '50s and '60s and see how few people come a flocking Kevin. Likewise, celebrate the Revised Missal as prescribed and see how few people even care about the Tridentine movement. Until either of these happen, it will have some degree of popularity -particularly with the very elderly and the very young. (The former for nostalgia reasons in part and the latter because of the illusion of liturgical sanity.)

KT1: When did Mass attendance skyrocket with the imposition of Missale Romanum Shawn? Which time period did it expotentially increase, as to justify the reforms made? Being those of your persuasion are so used to arguing mere validity (i.e. a Pope says this, a Constitution says this, which is quite true) we are asking once again that such a change was indeed warranted, and that your ends(the reforms) truly do justify the means. Which I of course, do not think they do.

Again, I have dealt with the *real* reasons for the decline in attendence and the like in recent essays (see the Palm essay response) and also on my main weblog Rerum Novarum. Until those arguments are actually addressed, I see no reason to entertain this garden variety argumentation which I have already dealt with (and confuted in detail) in other writings.

KT2: Now as far as the "way mass was celebrated" in the 50's and 60's, if there is truth to Shawn's statement(which there certainly is, but I believe he wants to overhype as to bolster his case) legitimate liturgical reform curbed these abuses, and if he were to believe the Traditional Mass is celebrated reverently(in general, there are of course notable exceptions) today, well, that's what authentic liturgical reform does. Can't have it both ways old friend.

Nice try my friend but there is only one small problem with this thesis: historical facts do not sustain it.

SME1:And of course the article Kevin quotes refers to A steady trickle of newcomers in their 20s, 30s and early 40s. Let us see if any of these churches maintain that level of attendance long-term -meaning a couple of years or more after the Indult is at these churches. For if it cannot, then the thesis that the "youth" are "beginning to flock" to it will be set aside as unviable.

KT2: Unlike Shawn and the Neo-Catholicism that is promoted many times at that weblog, I have no problem agreeing to these standards.

Pope Benedict XV's words continue to not resonate with Kevin it seems. I included them in my essay response to David Palm. Maybe they will resonate with him in that essay form better than they seem to in the weblog format thus far.

Nonetheless, it is good to see that we agree on this point. In my experience -and those of friends who went through different sections of the so-called "traditionalist" movement, these things do not sustain themselves long term for many reasons. Now if they do at the places that Kevin refers to, then more power to them and may their tribe increase. But most people who attend the Tridentine liturgy will return to the churches where the Revised Roman Missal is celebrated after a few years. Only either the real die-hards or those who live in the more abominable of dioceses (viz liturgical celebration in general) tend to be exceptions to this rule.

KMT2: By all means, test away, and if it isn't solid, let's look at how to make it solid. You don't make a giraffe better by changing it into a cow though.

Agreed. See my weblog entry on Cardinal Ratzinger and the Revised Roman Missal on this whole subject of "inventing rites." The Revised Missal is a ressourcement product. The restoration was done from the whole of the Great Tradition, not merely the early second millennium Roman Church usages. Like the Cardinal, my primary beef was with the manner whereby the restoration was treated -and the abuses which to some extent come from that outlook- not what was actually done.

SME1:As far as what the media says about Cardinal Danieels' position in terms of political terminology and the principle of "double-effect", I remind him of McElhinney's Media Dictum above. As far as JP II being "conservative" or "not-conservative", I remind Kevin that political terms cannot adequately convey theological positions.

Pope John Paul II is a very complex man -easily the most brilliant pope in recent memory. I think Andrew Greeley got it right when he said that Wojtyla "never in his adult life has had an unnuanced thought." For this reason, the media are the last people to be trusted to properly convey his philosophical paradigm as per said Dictum above.

KT2: I would certainly agree that the current Pontiff is a complex man, and depending on what you mean by recent memory, perhaps I could agree with that statement(one cannot forget Pius XII).

Like Pope Paul VI his spiritual son, Pope Pius XII was a brilliant pope. But Pope John Paul II is a cut above that. His specialties are theology and philosophy whereas Pius XII (like Paul VI) was learned in these areas but not a specialist in them. (Both Pius XII and Paul VI were canonical specialists.) I said what I did about Pope John Paul II not to slight his predecessors by any means. But we have a Leo the Great kind of pope here viz intellectual prowess. I know for a fact that I will never see another pope like him in my lifetime nor will you Kevin.

KT2:I don't neccessarily view "conservative" or "liberal" as mere political labels, but indeed, worldviews in and of themselves, I have written on the numerous blogs quite a few times about this, and in the very thing Shawn references I make a few general points about it when we talked about what is and isn't conservative.

SME1: The Definition of a Conservative

SME1:By that definition, the pope as well as myself are properly understood as being "conservative" since the term is synonymous with ressourcement. I humbly request that Kevin review that thread and in the future try to avoid political labelling when discussing theological subjects. (Or if he must do so then qualify the terms used properly please.)"

Part of me would laugh Shawn, that yes you are conservative, because your own definition says so.

Actually, I formulated my definition from the work of one of my intellectual mentors the late Senator Barry Morris Goldwater. I am conservative according to his definition essentially if we get technical about it.

KMT2: That is all for today, it truly does become sad when "short" responses between the two of us are indeed novels for everyone else, but, in the often used words of my colleague, I digress.

Our short comments being other people's books??? That is a sentiment that I can completely concur with :)

This has been a thought I've been musing on lately, and I hate to say it, but Neo-Catholics have a point when it comes to certain traditionalist thought. The idea that we just need to turn back the clock to the 1962 Missal or earlier, and the problem of the liturgy will be solved(or at least essentially solved.) I don't neccessarily believe this is true.

Whenever Traditionalists engage in polemics on the liturgical deformation, we readily acknowledge that there were certain problems with the Traditional Mass and it's way of celebration before the Novus Ordo. A simple "return to the way things were before" will simply leave us with those problems.

When the liturgical movement started to take a radical shift during the times of Pius XII(as they worked, many times under his nose) the work of liturgical reform was never truly finished. I think we traditionalists need to focus on this, to engage in authentic liturgical reform, without running the dangers of giving us another Novus Ordo.

Some of this I think has already occured, in the way many of the Traditional Mass are celebrated today. Shawn McElhinney tells us that if the Tridentine Mass were celebrated today like in the 50's and 60's, noone would attend. I heavily dispute this fact, but let's give him enough rope to hang himself.

String away :)

If indeed the way the mass is celebrated has changed to more reverence, and people are attending it because of that, then we have just shown an area of authentic liturgical reform, versus the now without a doubt defunct reform that gave us the Novus Ordo.

Just some random thoughts.

I never said of course that the "Novus Ordo" was not without its problems. But replacing one irreverently celebrated liturgy with another irreverently celebrated one...well...we already did that. And considering that at least the Revised Roman Missal has areas of significant improvement to it -and yes I will continue to assert it- it is not true progress to try to restore the older liturgy indescriminately. Rather, as I have argued at Rerum Novarum what is needed is restoring to the Revised Roman Missal some of the Gallican elements that were inadvisably removed. The intention was to cut down on unnecessary and useless repetition (ala 25 signs of the cross during the canon of the mass) but this became a case of simplification ad extremis unfortunately.

Rebalancing the Revised Roman Missal by ressourcement into the old Roman Missal rubrics is one part of the equation. Another is reform of the Tridentine Missal -a subject that I have discussed at Rerum Novarum at least three times. Interested readers can go there for those links -at least two of them are plainly marked.

As far as the decline in reverence, this is because of a decline in the respect for rules and a decline in respect for papal authority. And that problem *preceded* Missale Romanum as I have noted many times before. But this response is long enough so I will end it at this time.


Notes:

{1} "[I]n 1962, I was not opposed to the holding of a General Council. On the contrary, I welcomed it with great hopes. As present proof here is a letter I sent out to 1963 to the Holy Ghost Fathers and which has been published in one of my previous books. I wrote We may say without hesitation, that certain liturgical reforms have been needed, and it is to be hoped that the Council will continue in this direction. I recognized that a renewal was indespensible to bring an end to a certain sclerosis due to a gap which existed between prayer, confined to places of worship, and the world of action--schools, the professions, and public life." [Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: Open Letter to Confused Catholics pgs. 101-02 (c. 1986)]

{2} Indeed usually someone I know has to be attacked first before I do any attacking. Occasionally if I am attacked I will hurl thunderbolts but not very often. (Life is too short to get too worked up over that kind of stuff on a regular basis.)

{3} Read the text for yourself if you doubt me. It must be read in light of Pope Pius XII's teaching in Mediator Dei about the advantages that the vernacular tongue had for the people. (Followed up immediately with the injunction that without the Apostolic See's concurrence, it was not lawful to utilize of course.)

The references by Pope John XXIII in that Constitution to the liturgy were two and were very indirect. These should be read in light of the fact that at the time Latin was the language of the vast majority of the Church's liturgical celebrations -hence they would have to have some mention in a Constitution on promoting the study of Latin. However, any more reading into the Constitution than what I have noted is to read into the text rather than accept what the text actually says.

{4} Particularly since the decline of the study of Latin can be rationally explained as from the same root as the decline in mass attendence and other problems. (And the promulgation of a revised vernacular liturgy is not even in the equation when all the factors are taken into account.)

{5} Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh, Cardinal of the Roman Church illustrated it in many ways -one of which was by only addressing the Council in French and refusing to speak Latin at any time. (Offering instead to speak in Greek or Hebrew as languages which had a greater claim for sacred tongues than Latin. When this offer was declined, he settled for speaking in French.)

I do not exaggerate when I say that he was among those who more than most people had a strong influence on the breaking of the "catholicity means uniformity" Counter-reformation myth. But that is another subject altogether.

:: Shawn 4:30 PM [+] | ::

************************************