You're welcome. And thanks much for your contribution. At least it's reasonable and consists of more than personal attacks.
His writing is not thoroughly reasoned, and is very emotional in nature.
It would be nice then if you pointed out the errors. You only talk in general terms about the situation since Vatican II, which is easy to do, but it's harder to get down to brass tacks and handle a topic like the phenomenological personalism of JPII, which was the subject of the article.
Particularly dangerous is his use of materials from a schismatic group (Society of St. Pius X), as a source for the development of some of his positions.
I don't believe the article contained any references to the SSPX, except as references to books for further reading. As a sedevacantist, Derksen takes a very different position than the SSPX.
I think the major problem that some people have with the "New Mass," and with Vatican II, is the liberalism that ended up surrounding them.
If that's what you think, then you ought to make some attempt to document that position. But all the evidence points the other way. Try reading the "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators" by Kenneth Jones, reviewed by Pat Buchanan here: An index of catholicism's decline
Seattle Catholic also had an interesting article in which an mathemetician analysed some of the numbers documenting the decline since Vatican II and quantified the possibility that there was no cause and effect relationship. It was smaller than the odds that OJ's DNA didn't match the drops of blood. Springtime Decay by David L. Sonnier
We English speaking people were cheated by the ICEL (International Committee for English in the Liturgy - I've been following this fight for years!) translations of the Editio Typica of the Missale Romanum.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The New Mass was always meant to be done in the vernacular. The vernacular missals are the primary documents. The Latin version of the New Mass really has little relationship whatsoever to the vernacular versions because it was created afterwards, and large chunks of it were lifted wholesale from the traditional Latin Mass. But the Consilium always recognized that the Latin New Mass was virtually a dead letter while the vernacular Missals would be used for more than 99% of all instances of the New Mass.
It's not *new* doctrine, but rather an understanding of a doctrine on a deeper level, or a particular aspect of it.
Really? So perhaps you will be able to explain how the quote from Redemptor Hominis is simply "understanding of a doctrine on a deeper level" rather than changing the content of the Catholic faith.
Mario likes St. Thomas Aquinas, but he needs to realize that if there was no such thing as doctrinal development, Aquinas would have been branded as a heretic, rather than proclaimed a Doctor of the Church.
This is an old chestnut with no truth to it. St. Thomas Aquinas was recognized as a great saint and a great doctor of the Church within his own lifetime. So was his contemporary St. Bonaventure. Those teaching genuine Catholic faith are not branded as heretics. But the people in the hierarchy since Vatican II are certainly not to be compared to Aquinas or any other genuine Catholic. They are not developing doctrine, they are destroying it.
My first thought was to go through the entire article, literally line by line. I realized that was going to take a very long time, so I decided to keep it brief.
You raise interesting questions, and I'd love to address them. However, it's almost 1:00AM, and I wanted to get to bed two hours ago! It's been TOO interesting - I got sucked in! LOL! I want to get back here, but I can't promise. If I can, I will.
By the way, I've honed my flame avoidance skills since I was a kid. My favorite ride was the bumper cars, and I'd purposely avoid bumping into anyone. Of course that made everyone aim for me, and eluding them made it fun. :oD
And the vernacular missals were translated from the Latin text, except where the Latin text was identical to the previous Missal and had already been translated (or mistranslated, in the case of ICEL). If the New Mass was originally composed in English or another vernacular tongue and then translated into the other languages and Latin, as you seem to claim, proof should be very easy - Abp. Bugnini or Msgr. Gamber ought to mention it in their books. In fact, however, the ICEL translation was not completed till 1973 - something which would be absurd if the Latin was prepared from the ICEL and not the other way around.