[sinkspur]

Looked at with the benefit of hindsight, this passage provides an open-ended mandate for drastic change to anyone with an agenda.

An "agenda"? Celebrating the Lord's Supper in a native language is an "agenda"? Receiving the Body of the Lord in the hand, as Jesus Himself invited His apostles to share His Body, is an "agenda"?

Celebrating the Sacraments, in which Jesus makes Himself present to His people, in their native language, is an "agenda"?

I'm not a "clown Mass" advocate, nor do I support those priests who play fast and loose with the officially approved Sacramentary.

But to act as if the Novus Ordo, in English, in its present format, fully approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship, is some kind of aberration is just ludicrous.

[Notwithstanding]

Your comments about the liturgy are astute and accurrate. Kudos.

[marshmallow]

Thanks for putting all those words in my mouth, with regard to the word "agenda".

I thought I made my point perfectly clear. It was not to flame the Novus Ordo. It was to explain how it was that the Tridentine Rite was suppressed and the Novus Ordo came to be.

Yes there was an "agenda" on the part of the periti. It was to ditch the Tridentine Rite. When not a single word was said about doing so in Vatican II documents. If there was, find it for me.

[JMJ333]

I see after reading your posts on this thread that I was wrong to make the comment about you putting your political party above your religion. My apologies.