Did the liturgical revolutionaries use Article 37 of Sacrosanctum Concilium to “ban” the TLM? January 15, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
Just a bit more from Michael Davies The Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II. Davies examines Article 37, and then the practical treatment received by the Mass of St. Pius V (TLM) in the wake of Vatican II, and asks some trenchant questions:
Article 37 claims that “the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity on matters which do not involve the faith or the good of the whole community.” It explains that anything in the way of life of various races and peoples that “is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she (the Church) studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact.” [And this reveals itself in many ways: pagan dance, clown masses, balloon masses, introduction of pagan music, the list goes on and on] Sometimes, in fact, she admits such things into the liturgy itself, as long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.” In practical terms this has meant unrestricted pluriformity – with one exception. And in this case the most rigid uniformity prevails in the overwhelming majority of dioceses in the Western world. This is the rigid uniformity of not allowing the Traditional Latin Mass codified by Pope St. Pius V……..[And this remains true today, even after Ecclesia Dei, Summorum Pontificum, and Universae Ecclesiae. The TLM is far more available than it was when Davies first wrote this book, but his claim remains true to this day.]
…….The Traditional Mass would appear to be the one thing in the way of life of so many Catholic peoples around the world that is so “bound up with superstition and error” that almost all bishops consider that it cannot be admitted to the liturgy. This has historically been the unanimous view of every protestant sect [that the TLM was so bound up in error] – but some now take a very different view where the “reformed liturgy” is concerned.
The ultra-evangelical Church of the Confession of Augsburg issued a statement after the meeting of its superior consistory on Dec 8, 1973, permitting its members to receive Holy Communion in Catholic churches: “We attach great importance to the use of the new prayers (of the Catholic liturgy), with which we feel at home, and which have the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the theology of sacrifice than we were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite us to recognize an evangelical theology of sacrifice.” Dr. M. G. Siegvalt, a professor of dogmatic theology in the protestant faculty at the University of Strasbourg, testified that “Nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble an evangelical protestant.” The protestant theologian Roger Mehl wrote in the September 10, 1970 issue of Le Monde:
If one takes account of the decisive evolution in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Catholic Church, of the option of substituting other Eucharistic Prayers for the Canon of the Mass, [recall, Anibale Bugnini, architect of the liturgical revolution, desired the total expurgation of the Canon from his Novus Ordo, but Pope Paul VI would not permit that. In practical terms, however, most Catholics have never heard the Canon, but only the gravely deficient Eucharist Prayer II] of the expunging of the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice, and of the possibility of receiving Communion under both kinds, then there is no further justification for the reformed churches forbidding their members to assist at the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.
An Anglican bishop, Dr. John Moorman, remarked: “In reading the schema on the Liturgy, and in listening to the debate on it, I could not help thinking that, if the Church of Rome went on improving the Missal and Breviary long enough, they would one day triumphantly invent the Book of Common Prayer.”
All this was far from accidental. “St. Anibale,” as a certain reader cheekily calls him, desired a Mass that would be totally inoffensive to protestant sensibilities. He cared not a whit for Catholic sensibilities, routinely excoriating those who argued against his revolution as foolish souls attached to an antiquated relic of a bygone age. Looking at the consistent direction of his “reforms” (closely monitored and approved by Paul VI at virtually every step, though with a great deal of unscrupulous shenanigans on the part of Bugnini), and their immediate and lasting practical effects, one must conclude that Bugnini, whom Paul VI later became convinced was an active freemason, deliberately and with malice aforethought set out to undo the Catholic Mass and replace it with a protestant service commemorating, but not re-presenting, the Lord’s Supper. He even used such language in the original 1969 version of the Novus Ordo. The most key aspect was the removal of any and all reference to Sacrifice that he could possibly find.
What is one to make of this? My takeaway, as a former protestant, is that Anibale Bugnini and his collaborators were either secret protestants (in effect, if not formally), or intentionally sought to ruin the Mass in order to inflict as grave a wound on the Church as possible. Given European masonry’s 200 year death-struggle against the Church, the revelations that prompted his complete dismissal from the Vatican, subsequent exile to Iran (of all places!), and the complete disestablishment of his apparatus for permanent liturgical revolution (more formally than effectively) after his dismissal, many Catholics have concluded that Bugnini intended the latter. It must be remembered that at the time of his dismissal, Bugnini was about to launch upon the third and final phase of his revolution – the devolvement of control over liturgical rites to national conferences, with the creation of dozens if not hundreds of “national liturgies.” With that, the process of protestantization of the Mass would have been complete.
That particular effort was stymied, at least at the official, Vatican level, though national conferences do wield great, and largely negative, influence over the liturgy to this day. And we must recall that many acolytes of Bugnini remain in the Church, and many have been rehabilitated by the current pontificate after years in the liturgical wilderness. To this point, this pontiff does not seem interested in formally re-establishing the liturgical revolution of the 60s and 70s, but there are certainly players in his entourage who would like to. I cannot imagine they are just blithely biding their time. I’m sure they have plans and programs they’d like to implement, given the opportunity.
May God have mercy on His Church.