Father Sean has a very well written article on mutual enrichment, which was something I was going to write about today but he has done it much better than I could do.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tradmass revival
Father Sean has a very well written article on mutual enrichment, which was something I was going to write about today but he has done it much better than I could do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Lord’s descent into the underworld
At Matins/the Office of Readings on Holy Saturday the Church gives us this 'ancient homily', I find it incredibly moving, it is abou...
-
A French newspaper has reported Pope Francis, once Benedict dies, will abrogate Summorum Pontificum and handover Old Rite's celebrat... -
I was at the Verona Opera Festival when Summorum Pontificum was published but it wasn't until All Souls Day that I first attempted to s... -
In a conversation with our bishop recently, I thought he said that some parishes in the diocese were already using the new ICEL translations...
2 comments:
I'm afraid that this ''mutual enrichment'' notion is a load of rubbish in terms of Liturgy. Perhaps we could also invent a similar ''doctrinal enrichment,'' where various nice points of doctrine from other Christian traditions (or even other faiths...why be dull?) can enrich the Catholic faith? I don't see that this is any different from claiming that the liturgical books of 1962 (which are much-reformed and scarce to be compared with the Missal of Pius V) can in any way improve the Missal of Paul VI...
I don't see that this is any different from claiming that the liturgical books of Paul VI (which are much-reformed and scarce to be compared with the Missal of Pius V) can in any way improve the Missal of 1962...
there, fixed that for you... ;-)
The Missal of 1962 is substantially the same compared with that of St. Pius V - here is what Michael Davies said in his booklet "A Short History of the Roman Mass":
There have been revisions since the reform of St. Pius V, but until the changes which followed Vatican II these were never of any significance. In some cases what are now cited as "reforms" were mainly concerned with restoring the Missal to the form codified by St. Pius V when, largely due to the carelessness of printers, deviations had begun to appear. This is particularly true of the "reforms" of Popes Clement VIII set out in the Brief Cum sanctissimum of 7 July 1604, and of Urban VIII in the Brief Si quid est, 2 September 1634. The "reforms" of these two Popes have been used as a precedent for the reform of Pope Paul VI,but it is only necessary to glance through the Briefs of these popes, to see how utterly nonsensical such a comparison is. St. Pius X made a revision not of the text but of the music. The Vatican Gradual of 1906 contains new, or rather restored, forms of the chants sung by the celebrant, therefore to be printed in the Missal.
In 1955 Pope Pius XII authorized a rubrical revision, chiefly concerned with the calendar. In 1951 he restored the Easter Vigil from the morning to the evening of Holy Saturday, and, on 16 November 1955, he approved the Decree Maxima redemptionis, reforming the Holy Week ceremonies. These reforms were welcomed and have been highly praised by some of the traditionalists, who implacably opposed to the reform of Pope Paul VI. Pope John XXIII also made an extensive rubrical reform which was promulgated on 25 July 1960 and took effect from 1 January 1961. Once again this was concerned principally with the calendar. In none of these reforms was any significant change made to the Ordinary of the Mass. It is thus unscholarly,dishonest even,to attempt to refute traditionalist criticisms of the New Mass by citing changes made in the Missal by the popes just named.
Post a Comment