jump to navigation

More quotes from Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy January 21, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the return.

I’ve got to say, I was surprised that a book endorsed by Pope Benedict, and which some claim represented his own views on the liturgical revolution, contains so many explosive quotes.  I’ve left some bits out that are just pretty provocative.  But what I’ve put below is pretty hard-hitting.

Just some more random-ish quotes from Msgr. Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

One thing is certain: the new (liberal) theology was a major force behind the liturgical reforms…….Yet to assert, as is sometimes done, that the Novus Ordo Mass is “invalid” would be taking this argument too far.  What we can say is that ever since the liturgical reforms were introduced, the number of invalid Masses has certainly increased. [that may seem like a bald statement of fact to my readers, but if one thinks about this, it raises extremely disturbing implications.]

Neither the persistent  entreaties of distinguished cardinals, nor serious dogmatic points raised about the new liturgy, nor urgent appeals from around the world not to make the new Missal mandatory could stop Paul VI [from implementing the Novus Ordo and proclaiming the Mass, the eternal Mass, “abrogated.”]– a clear indication of his own, strong personal endorsement.  Even the threat of a new schism – the Lefebvre case – could not move him to have the traditional ritus Romanus at least coexist with the new rite – a simple gesture of pluralism and inclusiveness, which, in our day, certainly would have been the politic thing to do. [Two things, we can certainly see a lot of correlation between Gamber’s position and the stance adopted by Pope Benedict XVI, and we see how the tolerance so trumpeted by progressives never quite seems to extend to the traditional practice of the Faith.]

…..Since the conclusion of the Council, has our liturgical worship become more attractive to the faithful?  Did the new  liturgy contribute to strengthening the faith and piety among our people? Hardly! Even during the short time that has elapsed since the introduction of the Novus Ordo in 1969, our churches have become emptier, the number of our priests and religious continues to decline steadily and decline at an alarming rate.  The reasons for these developments are many and varied, but we must admit that the liturgical reforms failed to arrest the negative trends they were to remedy, and that, more likely than not, they helped make them significantly worse.   [I don’t think there is even a slight doubt, the massive changes in the liturgy have dramatically undermined the faith of tens or hundreds of millions of Catholics.]

……the three new versions of the Eucharistic Prayer, also known as the three Canons, constitute a complete break with the traditional rite; they have been newly created using Oriental and Gallican texts as models. They are truly alien to the Roman Rite….More importantly, theologians have expressed concerns about some of the formulations used in the prayers. [Especially the highly problematic EPII, the one the vast majority of the faithful experience when at Mass.  True story: at a local parish with a very liberal pastor, at one Sunday Mass the priest so rushed through the prayers of Consecration that the entire period from the end of the Offertory to the start of the Our Father took less than 3 minutes.  At a Sunday Mass.  That included intoning the Sanctus.]

……The question we must ask is what was to be gained by all these petty changes? Was it just to realize the pet ideas of some liturgy experts at the expense of a rite founded on a  tradition of 1500 years?  Or are these changes to be understood as the deliberate destruction of the traditional order? – because the newly placed accents clearly contradict the traditional faith from which the traditional rite was developed.  In either case, as we have seen, concerning the pastoral care of the faithful – which, of course, was the Council’s major objective – most of the reforms have proved to be simply unnecessary and positively destructive. 

….Although the argument is used over and over again by the people responsible for creating the new Mass, they cannot claim that what they have done is what the Council actually wanted. [I don’t think this claim can be so neatly made….] The instructions given by the Liturgy Commission were general in nature, and they opened up many possible ways for implementing what the Commission had stipulated, but one statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers. [….because of what Msgr. Gamber just said here. He  just told us the conciliar “instructions” for the reform of the Mass were vague.  That’s an understatement. They were not just vague, but frequently self-contradictory, and were so nebulous in places that carte blanche for the reformers/revolutionists could be reasonably claimed, and they took full advantage of that lack of clarity. I do tend to agree that the post-conciliar liturgy was not at all what the Council fathers had in mind, but they did, at the same time, approve documents which could be so easily misconstrued and manipulated. Even more, you had the conciliar Pope driving all these changes, and who could better interpret the will of the Council than he?  As Msgr. Gamber said, the Liturgy we got was certainly the one Pope Paul wanted, if not the entire Council.]

————–End Quote————–



1. Baseballmom - January 22, 2014

Interesting that Paul VI could cause such havoc in the area of liturgy, yet was prophetic in Humanae Vitae. A reminder that we can have squishy popes who cannot err in matters of Faith and Morals….

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: