Did Sacrosanctum Concilium call for permanent liturgical revolution? January 14, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church.
One book I read over my long break is one that is probably known to many readers but one which I had not read before. This is The Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II by Michael Davies. I’m not sure how much of this book I’ll eventually excerpt, but I did want to give a brief rundown of the problematic, our even outrageous, articles of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. These include articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 21, 23, 34, 37, 38, 40, 50, and 62. Each of these contain statements that were either so poorly worded as to be open to abuse (which is exactly what their creators intended), or which openly called for such radical notions that it is incredible that the Council Fathers passed them. But, then again, maybe those bishops weren’t the paragons of orthodoxy they are sometimes made out to be, since they all eagerly implemented the most radical interpretations of Vatican II in the years following the Council, while steadfastly opposing and even persecuting those who supported more orthodox notions.
A particular example problematic articles that are linked to one another concerns articles 4, 21 and 50. These have to do with what one might call permanent liturgical revolution: the continued modification, even remaking, of the Mass as years go by. That was plainly the intent of the prime architect of the liturgical revolution – Anibale Bugnini – and it was only his being revealed to Paul VI to be a freemason that resulted in his dismissal and at least the temporary slow down of that revolution.
The excerpts below from several pages within Davies’ book explore how the liturgical revolution was framed in certain code phrases embedded in the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy:
“It is worth pointing out that the “circumstances and needs of modern times,” which Article 4 of the CSL claims that the liturgy must be adjusted to meet, have occurred with great regularity throughout history. It is of the nature of time to become more modern with the passing of each second, and if the Church had adapted the liturgy to keep up with the constant succession of modern times and new circumstances, there would never have been any liturgical stability at all…….The corpus of papal teaching on the liturgy is readily available, but papal teaching on the need to adapt the liturgy to keep pace with “modern” times is conspicuous only by its absence – and this is hardly surprising when this alleged “need” is examined in a dispassionate and rational manner. When do times become modern? How long do they remain modern? What are the criteria by which modernity is assessed? When does one modernity cease and another modernity come into being? [Some thoughts: “modern” is a term that has come from progressive/liberal thought. It first started becoming a notion in the wake of the revolutions in France and the US, to compare the new “enlightened” system to the one that existed before. It is basically a rhetorical cudgel used to advance progressive views by contrasting an “enlightened” today against a hidebound past. That is why both the constant trend towards “modernity” in the secular culture, and the liturgical revolution, have always moved in one direction, and one direction only: towards a more and more progressive, liberal, libertine culture, world, and Church. And when we read of the “needs of modern times,” what is being said is, a need to correspond to the leftist zeitgeist, which means, in practice, the destruction of the Church.]
The complete fallacy of this “adaption to modernity” thesis was certainly not lost on some of the Council Fathers. Bishop (later Cardinal) Dino Staffa pointed out the theological consequences of an “adapted liturgy” on October 24, 1962. He told the assembled Fathers:
It is said that the Sacred Liturgy must be adapted to times and circumstances which have changed. Here also we ought to look at the consequences. For customs, even the very face of society, change fast and will change even faster. What seems agreeable to the wishes of the multitude today will appear incongruous after thirty or fifty years. [Just like bongo masses look idiotic today, and all those photos of hippy dippy “masses” from the late 60s and 70s looked as asinine as could be even a handful of years later] We must conclude then that after thirty or fifty years all, or almost all, of the liturgy would have to be changed again. [Again, the goal was permanent liturgical revolution, until virtually nothing sacred remained] This seems to me to be logical according to the premises….but hardly fitting for the Sacred Liturgy, hardly useful for the dignity of the Church, hardly safe for the integrity and unity of the Faith, hardly favoring the unity of discipline………..
Jumping ahead quite a bit, now how Article 21 fed into the permanent liturgical revolution:
The next time bomb is located in Article 21. It states that “the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted and elements subject to change.” This is perfectly correct – but it does not follow that, because certain elements could be changed, they ought to be changed………
………The CSL takes a different view, so startling and unprecedented a break with tradition that it seems scarcely credible that the Council Fathers voted for it. Article 21 states that elements which are subject to change “not only may but ought to be changed with the passing of time if features have crept in which are less harmonious with the intimate nature of the liturgy, or if existing elements have grown less functional.” These norms are so vague that the scope for interpreting them is virtually limitless, and it must be kept in mind continually that those who drafted the article would be the men with the power to interpret it. No indication is given of which aspects of the liturgy are referred to here: no indication is given of the meaning of “less functional” (how much is less?), or whether “functional” refers to the original function or a new one which may have been acquired. [Which was the point all along.]
Article 21 refers to the liturgy in general, but specific reference is made to the Mass in Article 50:
The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished. For this purpose the rites are to be simplified……..Elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage are now to be discarded. [Who decides whether something was duplicate or of little advantage? The liturgical revolutionaries] When opportunity allows or necessity demands, other elements which have suffered injury through the accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the holy fathers. [Notice the Machiavellian manner in which this article, as so many others in VII, was written. It can be read in a relatively innocuous way, to have very little meaning, especially if one comes from a standpoint of loving and revering the Liturgy as it was. It’s just orthodox enough to allay fears of those who are willing to suspend their disbelief and be duped. But it also gave the modernists all the room they needed to work a total revolution, as we have seen.]
……Thomas Cranmer himself could have written this passage as the basis for his own “reform” of the Catholic liturgy – i.e., his creation of the Anglican prayer service. There is not one point here that the apostate Archbishop of Canterbury did not claim to be implementing. An Anglican observer at VII, Bernard Pawley, praised the manner in which the liturgical reform following VII not only corresponded with, but has even surpassed, the reform of Thomas Cranmer. There is a very close correspondence between the prayers which Cranmer felt had been added to the Mass “with little advantage”(almost invariably prayers which made Catholic teaching explicit) and those which the members of the Consilium, which implemented the norms of VII (with the help of protestant advisers), also decreed had been added “with little advantage.”…….
Article 21 of the CSL, together with such articles as 1, 23, 50, and 62, have served as a mandate for the supreme goal of the liturgical revolutionaries – that of a permanently evolving liturgy. In September 1968 the bulletin of the Archdiocese of Paris…..called for a permenant revolution in these words: “It is no longer possible, in a period when the world is developing so rapidly, [notice the modernist, progressive conceit: these times are so unique (and better) than previous ones, they require unique responses] to consider rites as definitively fixed once and for all. They need to be regularly revised.” This is precisely the consequence with Bishop Staffa had warned at Vatican II would be inevitable.
Post is already long, so I won’t add much in conclusion. I’d say based on the above, whether there was a deliberate plan to work liturgical revolution is pretty much QED at this point.
I’d just add, that the reason a liturgical revolution was absolutely vital to the modernist program, the reason why the CSL was pushed through first, was because lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. The Faith turns around the Liturgy, especially the Mass. Change those, and you can change everything. In order to work a modernist-progressive revolution in the Church, it was vital to gain control of the Liturgy first and have severe changes already underway before the Council was even ended (but in the background, so that a reaction could not form). That was obviously accomplished.