Replies

Ultima Ratio:

Sir, you are waisting your breath, with this bunch, for they are being "invincibly ignorant" of the obvious. You and I--and several others here, both understand the proper context of Vatican II, and how ambivolent language was purposefully inserted into the counciliar documents. Many here are attempting to muddy the waters and play semantics.

Original intent is made obvious by the actions that follow immediately after a law is made operative. In other words, if there were some confusion of the methods to be used for the newly "instituted" rite, then such "misunderstandings" would have been clarified by Rome immediately--or, at the very latest, within one generation of the so-called reforms established by the Council. This was not the case, and the radical changes inflicted upon the Holy Mass were made in rapid succession. These were not "abuses;" but rather the planned outcome. "Well-intentioned reforms" do not transform overnight into "abuses," unless there is clear intent to abuse--such intent was made implicit through the ambiguities written throughout the conciliar text. To suggest otherwise is to pratice intellectual dishonesty.