Daily Archives: July 10, 2011
25 years later, “Yes, Prime Minister” continues to be one of the most profound pieces of TV comedy ever written. The great insights of the screenwriters is shown in the extremely elegant manner in which their simple truths are imparted, the clear message gently softened by that wonderful, wonderful British humour.
This time the always perceptive, suavely cynical Sir Humphrey Appleby introduces Jim Hacker, the Prime Minister, to the so-called Church of England.
It is sad to say that much of what he says applies to many of our bishops, too.
A new discussion has erupted regarding the limitations of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal concerning the music when the new missal comes into force. It appears very clear that these changes will be sweeping (no fantasy song at the Entrance and at Communion, say) and will be aimed at recovering some reverence and Catholic dignity to the Mass. I do not doubt that disobedience and pretending not to understand the instructions will be rampant at the beginning, but in time things will slowly adjust.
This is, though, another indication of what has happened in the last years:
1. A wonderful mass was available (the Tridentine);
2. V II and the “Spirit of V II” intervened and ravaged the Mass, protestantising it and reducing it to the travesty of the reverent, theologically sound celebration it was.
3. An attempt to recover the old, reverent way of celebrating Mass is ongoing, but still whilst trying to remain coherent with the principles of the new Mass.
What we continue to see is an attempt to repair a devastated Mass by staying as much as possible faithful to the principles of those who caused the devastation in the first place.
This is illogical. It must be clear now to everyone that what was wrong with the Novus Ordo is the Novus Ordo. It is not that there was a “right reform” which subsequently degenerated in the “wrong reform”. On the contrary, there was a wrong reform and this inevitably led to even worse problems, as logically as the French Revolution led to the Terror and the October Revolution led to the Stalinian purges. To start the “aggiornamento” and to think that it would stop where the initiators (allegedly) hoped it would stop was exactly as intelligent as to throw oneself down a cliff and to hope that one will stop in mid-air. There is no single problem of the Novus Ordo that has not been generated by the very mentality that has originated the Novus Ordo, that is: that the old ways were wrong, and the way of celebrating Mass had to be “updated”. The mentality is always the same, the only difference is the degree of devastation. The “Spirit of V II”-crowd is – liturgically speaking, of course; on the theology there have been no innovations, only a lot of confusion – not the betrayal of V II, but its logical end.
Further proof of this is that the allegedly moderate, “prudent revolutionaries” Conciliar Fathers who have given us the V II reforms were the same people who came back to their dioceses and immediately started to preside over the further work of destruction. This was not an accident, nor was it the result of all these bishops suddenly losing their head. It was the logical development of the ideological premise, that the liturgy needed to be “updated” and adapted to the new world. When you start to think that the Mass must be updated, where will the update stop? When you start to think that it must be adapted to the changed times, how will you stop those who want to, after some time, “adapt” further?
The recent attempts at repairing the Novus Ordo are laudable in themselves, but they are a path leading back to the only inevitable conclusion: the recovery of tradition, and of the Tridentine Mass. To continue to make wrong things less and less wrongly but remaining within the realm of the wrong mentality that caused the problems in the first place is an improvement (less wrong is better than more wrong, for sure), but it will never lead to doing things right.
The only way of doing things right is doing them the way they were done before the wrong mentality crept in.
Give us back the Tridentine Mass as the only Mass. This solves all the liturgical problems.
Susan Brooks Thistletwhaite is one of those liberals according to whom if you disagree with her you can’t be Christian. Coherently with this position (or perhaps not; but this is irrelevant at some point) she believes that Catholic bishops don’t have the right to be Catholic bishops, this being “undemocratic” and “not pluralistic”. The level of confusion going on here is impressive, but funny at the same time and shows all the Goebbelsian arrogance of Liberalism.
Today, I present to your attention (via The American Catholic) a fine piece of fisking of the delirious rants of the elderly lady, written by a Protestant. (a fine soul it would appear, who regularly defends the Catholic clergy and values from the attack of the liberal crowd. A prayer for his conversion is certainly in order).
It shouldn’t be said that I do not do my part for the understanding among Christian denominations..