Chapter I, Part 1 the problem: is it the same church? Vatican 2 can be described as a turning point in the history of the Catholic Church. Prior to this event the Church considered herself a 'perfect society' in no need of change



старонка22/33
Дата24.04.2016
Памер1.21 Mb.
#28270
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   33

The Meaning of the Mass


There is in the traditional Mass, no word or phrase, no single act of the celebrant, and no adornment of the altar or the priest, which is without significance. As M. Olier, the saintly founder of St. Suplice said: 'in order to present the mystery of the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, one must know that this sacrifice is the Sacrifice of Heaven... A Sacrifice is offered up in Paradise which, at the same time, is offered up here on earth, and they differ only in that here on earth the sacrifice occurs unseen.' What M. Olier is referring to is explained in the Apocalyptic vision of St. John the Apostle in which he describes the sacrifice of the Lamb, slain but alive and seated on the throne, with the twenty-four ancients adoring Him with melodies on the harp and with the burning of incense, while multitudes of angels and all creatures sing praise to the Lamb and the eternal Amen (Apoc. 5:6-14). As Scripture teaches: 'the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world'(Apoc. 13:8), this 'Lamb, unspotted and undefiled, foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you'(1 Pet. 1:19-20). Thus, in the Mass we see the Celestial Sacrifice of the Lamb brought down from Heaven and present on the altar before our eyes. As Canon Smith tells us, such saintly individuals as 'P. Condren, Cardinal de Berulle, M. Olier and P. Lapin are at one in holding that Christ in Heaven continues for ever to make an external and visible offering of His sacred Body, but whereas on Calvary that Body was destroyed in death, in Heaven it is annihilated, so to speak, in the radiant devouring glory of the divine life.' The Consecration and Sacrifice effected by the priest (standing in the place of Christ) is then, the visible manifestation of an eternal act. As the Abbe Gueranger says in The Liturgical Year, after the Consecration, 'the divine Lamb is lying on our altar!' The reader is asked to consider the accompanying illustration drawn from a standard text. It shows how the Liturgy celebrated at a precise moment in time, is the visible reality, here and now, of the timeless, eternal Mass of Heaven described in the Apocalypse. Through it, we participate in the Celestial Liturgy; through it the gates of Heaven and the possibility of eternal life are made available to us.

The concept is important if we are to understand in what way the Mass is a 'memorial'. It is not a memorial in the sense that we commemorate the death of the unknown soldier, or even the death of a loved one. (This is the Protestant view, namely that the Mass is a 'memorial' of the Crucifixion.) Rather, the Mass is a memorial in the sense that it 'recalls to mind,' once again, in time and space, what happened on Calvary and what is occurring eternally and perpetually in Heaven. This can only occur through the mediation of a priest who has been given the power to bring, as it were, Heaven down to earth.

It naturally follows that every word and action of the priest is significant. The Mass recapitulates the entire history of the Redemption. If for example he makes 33 Signs of the Cross, this is to commemorate the number of years Our Lord spent on earth. If he extends his hands over the chalice while reciting the Hanc Igitur, he is recapitulating the action of the High Priest of the Jews who placed his hands on the sacrificial goat to transfer to it the sins of the people. (The 'scape-goat,' prefiguring Christ was adorned with a red ribbon - as Christ was mockingly covered with a red cape at His trial - and then led out into the desert where he was hurled down from a high precipice as a Sacrifice.) If the priest faces the altar during the Sacrifice (except when he turns to bring us the blessings that derive therefrom), it is because it is on the altar that the action is occurring, and the priest is, like Christ whom he represents, an intermediary between us and God. If the altar traditionally faces the East, it is because this is the direction of the Rising Sun, a symbol of our Lord. As to the altar - it is not a 'table' - we know from its consecration that it relates to the altar of Moses and also to that of Jacob (Jacob's pillow) - and that the alter itself is the Body of Christ and is placed 'at the center of the world' - the axis mundi - so that all creation is, as it were, peripheral to the Mass and thus capable of being integrated through the divine action. And if the priest is dressed in royal fashion during the rite, it is because he represents Christ the King. He is no longer an individual ('Father 'Bob''), but an alter Christus - another Christ. It is not for nothing that the priest purifies his hands before performing the Sacrifice, nor for vain reasons that he cleanses the chalice with exquisite care after consuming the Sacred Species. None of these acts are the inventions of men . As the Abbe Gueranger says: 'It is to the Apostles that those ceremonies go back that accompany the administration of the sacraments, the establishment of the sacramentals, the principal feasts... The apostolic liturgy is found entirely outside of Scripture; it belongs to the domain of Tradition.'

Yet this is the Mass that the post-Conciliar 'popes' saw as having 'undesirable features' and 'failing to adequately express the holy things it signified'. In the face of the changes mandated by the post-Conciliar 'popes', will not Our Lord once again complain that 'my pastors have destroyed My Vineyard, they have trodden My portion under foot..., they have changed My delightful portion into a desolate wilderness'(Jer. 12: 10-11).


Can We Loose the True Mass?


Had Satan been aware that Christ was the Divine Logos, he would never have agitated for the Crucifixion. Needless to say every true Mass reminds him once again of his terrible mistake and at the same time is a vehicle for infinite graces being bestowed on mankind. No wonder that he has an intense hatred for the Mass.

It has always been predicted that the true Mass would be taken from us. Listen to the words of St. Alphonse de Liguori: 'The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice' (Dan. 8:12).' (30)

Much the same is said by Father Fahey: 'All the frightful energy of Satan's hatred is especially directed against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Arrayed with him and animated with the same hatred, there is an army of invisible satellites of the same nature. All their efforts are directed towards preventing its celebration by exterminating the priesthood, and towards curtailing its effects. If Satan cannot succeed in completely doing away with the one and only acceptable act of worship, he will strive to restrict it to the minds and hearts of as few individuals as possible.' (31)

The hatred of the Reformers for the traditional Mass is well known. Luther called it an 'abomination', a 'false blasphemous cult', and instructed the rulers under his influence 'to attack the idolators' and to suppress their worship as much as possible. He repeatedly denied its true sacrificial nature and above all hated the 'abominable Canon in which the Mass is made a sacrifice'. Indeed, he went so far as to say 'I affirm that all brothels, murderers, robberies, crime, adulteries are less wicked than this abomination of the Popish Mass.' As to the Canon or core of the Mass, he stated: 'That abominable Canon is a confluence of puddles of slimy water, which have made the Mass a sacrifice. The Mass is not a sacrifice. It is not the act of a sacrificing priest. together with the Canon, we discard all that implies an oblation.'

In words that are almost prophetic Luther noted that 'when the Mass has been overthrown, I think we shall have overthrown the Papacy. I think it is in the Mass, as on a rock, that the Papacy wholly rests... Everything will of necessity collapse when their sacrilegious and abominable Mass collapses.'

When we come to the Anglicans we fare little better. While their phraseology was slightly more restrained, it is clear that they also denied the Real Presence. Texts current during the time of the Reformation describe the Blessed Sacrament as 'a vile cake to be made God and man', and the Mass itself as 'the worshipping of God made of fine flour'. The phrase 'hocus pocus' was used by the English Reformers to deride the Words of Consecration 'Hoc est Corpus Meus.' Anglican theology denies that the Mass is a sacrifice as Catholics understand it, and allowed the word sacrifice to be applied in only three senses: the sacrifice of thanksgiving, benevolence and liberality to the poor, and the mortifying of our own bodies. None of these requires an altar. As Cranmer said, 'the form of a table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Mass into the right use of the Lord's Supper. For the use of an altar is to make a sacrifice upon it: the use of a table is to serve for men to eat upon.' Cranmer and his ilk specifically denied the doctrine of transubstantiation (or the Real Presence), and if the First Book of Common Prayer, due to the ambiguous use of language, was capable of a Catholic interpretation, changes were made in the Second Book of Common Prayer specifically designed to exclude this possibility. If any doubt remains as to their attitude the reader is referred to the 'Thirty Nine Articles' to which every Anglican (and Episcopalian) clergyman must adhere, and which 'no man may hereafter either print, or preach, to draw the Article aside in any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof...' The list of articles which are de fide for Anglicans includes the one we have already called attention to, namely that the Mass as understood by the Council of Trent is 'a blasphemous fable and a dangerous conceit.'

What then are we to think when we find Paul VI being photographed with, and thanking the six Protestant 'observers' for helping in the creation of his Novus Ordo Missae - for assisting in 're-editing in a new manner liturgical texts tried and tested by long usage, or establishing formulas which are completely new... [thus] imparting greater theological value to the liturgical texts so that the lex orandi conformed better with the lex credendi' (L'Osservatore Romano, May 11, 1l70)? Quite apart from admitting the scandal of non-Catholic involvement in the creation of this new 'rite,' the statement implies that either the liturgical texts prior to 1969 did not possess the degree of theological value which was desirable, or that the lex credendi (the Church's law of belief) had changed! Should we have any doubt about which of these two alternatives to choose, the Protestants have resolved them for us. The Superior Consistory of the Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Lorraine (Evangelical Lutheran) publicly acknowledged that Lutherans could take part in the 'Catholic eucharistic celebration,' because it allowed them to 'use these new Eucharistic prayers with which they felt at home.' And why did they 'feel at home with them?' Because they had 'the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the theology of the sacrifice than they were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism' (Dec. 8, 1975). Dr. M. G. Siegvalt, a Professor of dogmatic theology at the Protestant faculty at Strasbourg has testified that 'nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant.' The Protestant theologian Jaraslav Pelikan tells us that the obvious purpose of the Conciliar Document on the Liturgy was to introduce 'the liturgical programme set for the by the Reformers.' And what was this program of the Reformers other than to destroy the Mass and thus to destroy the Church? The final result is described by Archbishop Bugnini, the primary person responsible for the creation of the Novus Ordo Missae: 'the liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church.'

Both Lutherans and Anglicans, to say nothing of other categories of 'separated brethren,' find no objection to participating in the Novus Ordo Missae, and indeed, in using it themselves as an alternative form of worship. Nor does the post-Conciliar Church have any objection to Anglican 'priests' who join the Catholic Church, using their own rites. Obviously, Protestants do not find the new rite a 'blasphemous fable... more wicked than all brothels, murders, robberies, crimes and adulteries.' Indeed, some Protestant sects have made alterations in their own rites to bring them into line with the Novus Ordo. As Brother Thurian of the Taize community states, 'one of the fruits [of the Novus Ordo] may be that non-Catholic communities may be able to celebrate the last Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically this is possible.' The Anglican Archdeacon Pauley states that the Novus Ordo has, in many places, 'outstripped the Liturgy of Cranmer.' Supposed Catholics also bear witness to the situation. As Father Galineau, S.J. says, 'The Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.' In a similar manner Archbishop Dwyer said 'the Latin past of the Church' has been 'all but expunged... reduced to a memory in the middle distance.' In the light of such statements, how are we to understand the words of Paul VI whose primary function is to preserve the deposit of the faith intact: 'Let everyone understand well that nothing has been changed in the essence of our traditional Mass... There is nothing in this idea, absolutely... The new rite, the Mass, is the same as always. If anything, its identity has been made more recognizable in certain of its aspects' (Allocution, Nov. 16, 1969). 'It is in the name of tradition that we ask all our sons and daughters, all catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the Novus Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful... The New Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old...'(Custos, quid de nocte, May 24, 1976).



CHAPTER XI, part 5
THE LITURGICAL REVOLUTION




Vatican II's Liturgy Constitution

The traditional Mass is then, not only the most sacred possession of the Church, but also a treasure that can be traced back to Apostolic times. It was the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy promulgated by Vatican II that opened the doors to change by stating that the sacramental rites are to be reformed 'in accord with sound tradition' - as if sound tradition did not demand their retention without change. Let us see how it set about doing this. It stated: 'The divine liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and elements subject to change. The latter not only may but ought to be changed with the passing of time if features have by chance crept in which are less harmonious with the intimate nature of the liturgy, or if existing elements have grown less functional. In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify.'

While the first sentence is true, the second implies that the traditional liturgy contained features which were undesirable and which failed to adequately express the holy things they signified. For this there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. But the second sentence was much more - it was a 'time bomb' - for the simple reason that the document never specified what was and what wasn't 'unchangeable'. As we shall see in the next chapter, even the very words Our Lord used for the Consecration at the Last Supper fell into the category of 'elements subject to change!'

The Council then went on to specify some of the changes they considered necessary. They were to be characterized by the need for a 'noble simplicity,' they were to be 'short, clear and unencumbered by useless repetitions', and they were to place the rite 'within the people's powers of comprehension' so that they 'didn't require much explanation.' In addition, they were to be such that the 'Christian people' could 'take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.' Needless to say, the use of the vernacular was approved. Taking advantage of the theological usage of the term 'Logos' (which can be applied to Christ, to the Eucharist, or simply translated as 'the Word'), the document stressed the concept that Scripture was 'the Word of God' and that the role of Scripture 'was of paramount importance in the celebration of the Liturgy.' Such a statement allowed for the displacement of the Eucharist in favor of Scripture, and indeed, for the displacement of tradition in favor of the Bible. The Eucharist itself was described as the 'Sacrament of Unity', the term 'unity' meaning one thing to the traditional Bishops, and quite another to those who envisioned a new world order. In order to satisfy the conservatives, however, certain phrases were inserted. The rites were to be revised in accord with 'sound tradition'; 'there were to be no innovations unless the good of the Church generally and certainly required them,' and Latin was to be retained as the 'official language of the Church.' Such phrases were of course more 'time bombs'. They sounded fine but were open to multiple interpretations.

But there is more. Having said all this, the document went on to state that 'in some places and circumstances... and even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed,' and power to approve these further 'adaptations' was to be granted to local 'territorial ecclesiastical authority.' History will show that this was one of the biggest 'time bombs' of all. Every local hierarchy set up its own 'territorial authority' or 'liturgical commission' and every possible innovative variation was introduced. When Rome sorted these out and returned to a somewhat more stable and conservative liturgical form, the faithful who had not abandoned the Church completely were able to breath a sigh of relief. Relative to what had been going on it seemed like a return to orthodoxy.

As the Protestant theologian Jaroslav Pelican stated, the Constitution on the Liturgy 'does not merely tinker with the formalities of liturgical worship,' it 'seeks to form and to reform the very life of the Church,' and that it represents 'the acceptance, however belated, of the liturgical programme set forth by the [early Protestant] Reformers.' Annibale Bugnini who was primarily responsible for the final form of the Constitution and hence in an excellent position to evaluate it said, 'the image of the liturgy as given by the Council is completely different from what it had previously'(Doc. Cath. Jan. 4, 1967). No wonder Cardinal Ottaviani asked the assembled fathers if they were 'planning a revolution.'



Preparing the Faithful Before the Council

Paul VI said that the acceptance of the new 'mass' was an 'act of obedience' to the Council. The Council, however, only opened the flood-gates to reform - the innovators had been hard at work for many years and were well prepared to take advantage of the situation John XXIII created. Attacks upon the liturgy and sacraments date back to sub-apostolic times, and can be documented throughout the course of history. The Freemasons have always had an intense interest both in creating their own rituals,and in having the Church alter those established by Christ and the Apostles in order to bring them into line with Freemasonic principles (44). The Abbe Dom Gueranger described the service that the reformers would create over 100 years ago and it is amazing to note the degree to which the Novus Ordo Missae fulfills his criteria .

Over the past 50 to 100 years the attacks on the Liturgy have been in the hands of modernist 'reformers' within the Church. They have continuously labored and primarily achieved their goals, by infiltrating the 'Liturgical Movement' which had originally been instituted to preserve and foster the traditional forms of worship. Even though the Church frustrated most of their efforts prior to Vatican II, the innovators were successful in introducing a whole host of concepts into this movement - such as the idea that the liturgy had to be 'pastoral,' simple, and easily understandable (How can we easily understand such a high mystery?); the need for using the vernacular; the concept of 'the people of God'; 'the primacy of the Word of God' by which they meant the primacy of Scripture over the Eucharist; and the insistence on activism and participation on the part of the laity. All this, plus a large number of pseudo-historical studies aimed at undermining the historical foundations of the liturgy helped to prepare the way.

Even the claim that the Liturgical Commission created the Novus Ordo Missae after the Council is false, for a virtually similar rite had been in use in South India as early as 1950, and at Taize since 1959. All that the innovators did with the help of the Protestant 'observers' was to put the finishing touches on their earlier efforts. The Abbe Bonneterre provides an excellent review of the machinations of these reformers over the past 50 years. (47) We shall review a few of them briefly.

In 1948 Pius XII established the 'Commission for Liturgical Reform.' (48). Its director was the Rev. (later Cardinal) Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M. and the Secretary the Rev. (later Archbishop) Annibale Bugnini, C.M. It is these two individuals who have primarily been responsible for the various steps that culminated in the Novus Ordo Missae.

We have already presented evidence that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason. Service for Pentecost Eve was entirely suppressed. The Liturgical Revolution was well on its way.

The next step was the promulgation of the decree Cum Nostra Hac Aetate in 1955. This introduced a host of minor changes in the Breviary and Missal which in no way affected the laity, but which introduced among the clergy a sense that 'change was in the air' and further alterations were in the offing. But the laity were also to be softened up and Cum Nostra Hac Aetate was followed up by the suppression of the Solemnity of St. Joseph as 'Patron of the Universal Church' and its replacement by the Feast of 'St. Joseph the Worker' - and this on May Day, the international Socialist holiday. Then in 1958, one month before the death of the beleaguered Pius XII, the Instruction on Sacred Music was promulgated which fostering the 'Dialogue Mass.' Under the cover of encouraging lay participation, commentators made their first appearance -their supposed role being to read in the vernacular while the priest read in Latin. All these changes were masterminded by Antonelli and Bugnini.

In October 1958 John XXIII came to the pontifical throne and within three months the Council was under way. Annibale Bugnini was appointed to serve as secretary of the Preparatory Liturgical Commission of the Council. Clearly the ideal person was placed in the ideal position to leave behind the 'time bombs' that later exploded. The fox was given the run of the chicken-coup.

In July of 1960 John XXIII promulgated a new body of rubrics (rules) for the Breviary and Missal; he thus established what has come to be known as 'the Mass of John XXIII, or 'Middle Bugnini.' Then in 1962, during the Council itself (and during the debates on the Sacred Liturgy), John XXIII introduced the name of St. Joseph into the Canon of the Mass - the first change in over 1500 years and a clear-cut message to the assembled Fathers that virtually nothing was sacrosanct.

John XXIII died in 1963 and was followed by Paul VI. Almost immediately we have a host of continuous minor liturgical changes culminating in the promulgation of the New 'mass' on April 3, 1969. Once again, the person appointed to oversee all this was the infamous Annibale Bugnini. Over 200 documents are involved and those who wish to follow the dismantling process step by step are referred to 'Documents on the Liturgy' published by the Liturgical Press . As Michael Davies has noted, 'a cursory reading [of these documents will reveal that they are frequently replete with sound theology, stern warnings against abuses and unauthorized innovations, profound veneration of tradition and traditional liturgical forms, urgent admonitions to preserve these traditions... In reading these documents it is necessary to ignore the orthodox padding and discover exactly what they permit which was not permitted before and exactly what they forbid which was not forbidden before.'

Perhaps the most important of these documents was Sacram Liturgiam (January 1964). which established the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgica or the Concilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy. It consisted of some 50 bishops, several Protestant 'observers', and two hundred consultants or advisors, mostly drawn from the periti of the Council. It also emphasized the right of the national hierarchies ('territorial authorities' mentioned above) to approve vernacular translations, a fact which Father Bugnini considered a most significant development because it 'broke the centuries old barrier' which insisted that Rome had to approve liturgical translations. He further noted that the term territorial is 'designedly elastic.' Another was Inter Oecumenici (Sept. 1964) which, among other things, initiated the laity praying the Pater Noster with the priest, changed the formula used by the priest in distributing communion, forbade the Leonine Prayers after Mass for the Conversion of Russia (including the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel), introduced the 'Prayer of the Faithful' (the 'Bidding Prayers' of the Anglican Church) and allowed for the entire Mass apart from the Preface and Canon to be said in the vernacular. Other changes included the abolition of the Judica Me (the priest's prayers) at the beginning of Mass and the dropping of the Last Gospel. Perhaps the most important thing it did however was to set up 'National diocesan liturgical Commissions' dominated by liberals, an act which resulted in 'the creation of a vast liturgical bureaucracy with a vested interest in the reform, particularly its continued evolution.' Inter Oecumenici went beyond the Mass; it also introduced changes in the other Sacraments, little noticed at the time.

What the laity saw was a constant series of innovations in their liturgy. Every week something new was introduced. In April of 1965 the Holy See authorized the vernacular for the Preface. In September the practice of substituting Saturday evening Mass for the Sunday obligation was approved. Then in May of 1967 Tres Abhinc Annos allowed the entire Canon to be said in the vernacular, forbade the laity to genuflect (kneel down) at the Incarnatus; the priest to genuflect after consecrating the Sacred Species and abolished all Signs of the Cross between the Quam oblationem and the consecration of the Chalice. (Cranmer suppressed all but two of them in his 1549 communion Service and dropped the remaining two in 1552 after Martin Bucer objected to their retention.) Because the prayers said in association with these Signs of the Cross remained unaffected at this stage, most priests accepted the change without complaint. This further conditioned them to accept the new Eucharistic Prayers when they were promulgated - 'Canons' which contained neither the prayers nor the Signs of the Cross. Other significant changes were that the priest no longer had to keep his thumbs and forefingers together lest the smallest part of the Host should fall; he was only to kiss the altar at the start of the service, and he was free to say Mass without the chasuble, thus appearing like a typical Protestant minister.

As Michael Davies says, the list of mutilations to the traditional Mass is long and depressing. The mask was off completely'. Father Bryan Houghton was blunter in stating that 'This was the revolution'. Father Stephen Rigby discussed the situation in these terms: 'withdraw this, make that optional and see how they take it. condition them by the gradual and permissive for the compulsory and the revolutionary.'

The stage was set. The fact that the Tres Abhinc Annos met with little resistance meant that no large scale opposition was to be feared when the new 'mass' appeared. The next step was the English (ICEL) mistranslations. The penultimate step was the Decree Preces eucharisticae promulgated in May 1968 which introduced three new Canons. The consilium had wished to abolish the ancient Roman Canon completely, but Paul VI 'intervened' to save it . Saved it was, to become Eucharistic Prayer No 1, but changed in significant ways which will be discussed in the next chapter. Conservative priests hailed this as providing a way 'out', while others were perfectly free to use the other 'Eucharistic Prayers' which were shorter, easier, and according to the Consilium, better reflected 'the worldwide and ecumenical perspectives of the Second Vatican Council and also those of the so-called 'theology of secular values'.' We no longer had to use the venerable Canon 'composed out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy pontiffs.' These three new 'canons' blew the old Mass to pieces!

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was ecstatic. He stated: 'The new song has begun, and it will not cease. Life generates life: the first verses of this new canticle will call forth other verses, other hymns, and other innumerable and unceasing songs: the songs of the liturgy of perennial youth. It is the law of life. We should not then turn our backs on this inescapable demand of the Spirit because of temporary discomfort, technical difficulties, or force of habit -- even if these habits are deeply rooted. In their relationship with god, the new generations feel the need for new formulas which express more explicitly the spiritual needs of today. They know that they can pray equally well to God with a 'new song'. It is to this that the Church now invites us. '

The Liturgical Revolution was thus introduced by stages. This was precisely the policy followed by Cranmer, who, at the beginning of his liturgical revolution, avoided any drastic changes 'which would needlessly provoke the conservatives and stiffen the attitude of that large class of man, who, rightly handled, could be brought to acquiesce in ambiguity and interim measures.' As Cardinal Heenan said in a pastoral letter: 'I would have been foolhardy to introduce all the changes at once. It was obviously wise to change gradually and gently. If all the changes had been introduced at once, you would have been shocked'(Sept. 1969).

And so we are brought to April 1969, and the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae which Paul VI asked us to accept 'with joyous enthusiasm and to implement it with prompt and unanimous observance.' This was demanded on the grounds that the reform was 'due to the express wishes of the recent Ecumenical Council.' Every Catholic was obliged to render 'prompt adherence' because 'the reform about to be implemented corresponds to an authoritative mandate of the Church. It is an act of obedience, an attempt by the Church to maintain her true nature' (General Audience, Nov. 1969).





Поделитесь с Вашими друзьями:
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   33




База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2022
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка