Posted on 07/05/2022 2:23:23 PM PDT by ebb tide
The following article was written by an anonymous diocesan priest in Germany and published under the title "Die alte Liturgie und die neuen Konzilsverächter: Als Kardinal Frings fassungslos war" at Katholisches.info. It partly draws its content from my article at OnePeterFive, "Daringly Balanced on One Point: The New Papal Letter on Liturgy" of June 29, with much additional valuable content. It has been translated for Rorate.--PAK
When the second liturgical reform took place [i.e., in 1969], he was stunned and told us, "This is not what we Council Fathers decided, this is against the decisions of the Council. I cannot understand how the Holy Father could give his consent to such a thing." I was perplexed and asked our uncle, "Then how could such a thing happen?" To which his sad reply was, "The Council Fathers didn't want many things, but then came the periti, and they were mostly very progressive gentlemen, and they pushed everything in a different direction." [1]
Cardinal Frings, whom Ratzinger served as peritus |
The gradual destruction of the liturgy is a sad fact universally known. In less than five years the millennial structure of divine worship has been dismantled.... In its place, an infantile, noisy, crude and highly tiring form of the rite was introduced. And the alienation and reluctance of the faithful were hypocritically ignored. [2]I regret having voted for the Council Constitution in whose name -- but in what a way! -- this pseudo-reform was carried out. If it were possible, I would take back the vote I cast. [3]
You can understand my astonishment when, on taking note of the final edition of the new Missale Romanum, I found that its contents in many respects did not correspond to the texts of the Council with which I was well acquainted, much was altered, expanded, and even directly contrary to the decrees of the Council. [4]Never has there been, in any area of Catholic rites, and surely not in the Roman Latin, a rupture, a radical new creation, until the present postconciliar liturgy of the reform, despite the fact that the Council ... repeatedly demanded the absolute preservation of tradition in the reform.... It is a well-known fact that all heretical secessions from the Catholic Church have always resulted in a liturgical revolution, as can be seen particularly clearly in the case of the Protestants and Anglicans, whereas the reforms initiated by the Council of Trent and carried out by Pope Pius V up to those of Pius X, Pius XII and John XXIII were not revolutions, but only insignificant adaptations and enrichments. The Council expressly says concerning the reform desired by the Fathers, that nothing new should be introduced that is not demanded by a real and proven benefit to the Church. [5]
Here another important point must be raised, wherein the Council injunctions were not only misunderstood but totally denied: sacral language... When the subject of the language of the divine cultus was discussed in the Council Hall, and indeed through several days, I followed the whole process with great attention, as I did afterwards the various formulations in the Constitution on the Liturgy until the final vote. I remember very well how, after some radical proposals, a Sicilian bishop rose and implored the Fathers to exercise caution and discernment on this point, since otherwise there was a danger that the whole Mass would be said in the vernacular, whereupon the whole council hall burst into peals of laughter. [6]
This must be stated unequivocally: the Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed. [7]
In some discussions with traditionalists, it has become commonplace to say that "nothing has changed." It would be far better to have the courage to admit that the Church has made significant modifications, for good reason. Why not admit that the religion has changed? [8]
Who could have dreamed on the day Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated that in a few years, in less than a decade, the Latin tradition of the Church would be all but extinguished and become a slowly fading memory? The thought of this would have horrified us, but it seemed so inconceivable that we considered it ridiculous. And so we laughed it off. [9]
The problem of the new Missal lies in the fact that it breaks away from this continuous history, which has always gone on before and after Pius V, and creates a thoroughly new book (albeit from old material), the appearance of which is accompanied by a type of prohibition of what has gone before that is quite unheard-of in the history of ecclesiastical law and liturgy. I can say with certainty from my knowledge of the Council debate and from rereading the speeches of the Council Fathers delivered at that time that this was not intended [by them]. [10]
The deep displeasure of some fathers with the so-called liturgical reform found expression in vehement statements. Bishop Donal Lamont of Umtali in Rhodesia stated succinctly on October 24: "We are poisoned by the renewal" (viz., of the liturgy). Cardinal Secretary of State Cicognani indignantly exclaimed: "Sat experimenta, sat innovationes!" ("Enough of experimentation, enough of innovation.") [11]
Against the new Order of Mass, then, there was strong opposition from the bishops participating in the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops [in 1967]. But this opposition was surprisingly ignored and had no effect.... With intransigence, intolerance, and defiance, the authors and promoters of the so-called liturgical reform persisted in their erroneous ideas. [12]
Paul VI addresses the Synod Fathers in 1967 |
What was sacred to previous generations remains sacred and great to us as well; it cannot suddenly become roundly forbidden or even harmful. [13]
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.