Wednesday, 30 August 2006

Mangled Liturgy older than Vatican II?


Well this is something which I have always believed, not that I have a great recollection of the Tridentine rite from my youth. I was about 8 or so when English was used and I served it as an altar boy a few years later. I conduct a choir now for the splendid Tridentine Mass said with care and dignity. I also love the Novus Ordo when said properly without shortcuts and improvisations. I simply love the mass.

Having conducted a schola and choir for the Tridentine since May, I can see that it too could have been open to abuse.  

Just follow my train of thought. I can't remember the saint, somewhere around the 12th century but he had doubts about the Real Presence and there was one person in the church. He thought the man a fool after he said the words of consecration and he was stunned to see actual flesh and blood on the paten. So my point is, with the Canon said in silence and the fact that all men are sinners and heretical or careless priests did not just come along in 1970; it is possible that he could be just saying yada, yada, yada and the faithful would never know. It's one advantage about the Novus Ordo--we can clearly see and hear the abuses!

Which brings me to a most excellent column on the Holy Eucharist by Benedict M. Ashley, O.P. and as Father Richard John Newhaus would say, "you're always considered a convert" as was Father Ashley.

Here is the first paragraph which you can click on to link.

We have all suffered at Mass from the intrusive, even sometimes heretical modifications of the liturgical texts by "creative" priests; from the banal translations of some of these texts; from the inaudible or mangled reading of them by lay readers; from fatuous hymns or badly strummed guitars, etc., etc. Should we blame this on Vatican II and its Novus Ordo and call for a return to the "Tridentine" Mass?

No comments: