www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Implications of Summorum Pontificum for the RDL

Father David,

You previously posted on this forum that the 2001 approval letter was a private and privileged communication between Rome and the bishops. You said that the bishops have determined that the clergy and faithful have no right to see the letter from Rome authorizing the revisions. You said that anyone who asked to see a copy was in effect accusing the bishops of lying. You also stated that you had a copy and even copied out a sentence while claiming clergy and laymen had no right to see it.

Are you saying that the 1964 approval letter is public and someone can post a copy? If it is public surely you, as the leading member of the "Revise the Liturgy Committee" have a copy you can post?

Are you serious in asking someone to post a copy of a letter you know to be forbidden?

It looks like that you are taunting people.

DJ

Nicholas,

"But the Revision is an error, and it is full of errors."

This is also written by many Latin Traditionalists regarding the 1970 Missal and it is this same type of talk that Pope Benedict clearly rejects by stating:

"The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite."

For those who wish to see the 65 Liturgicon used, or even restored as the normative Usage I would suggest not being overly polemical about it and simply state their wish for the full Ruthenian Recension.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon,

The language of the new Byzantine order does not even manage to be grammatical. Somebody wasn't lookin' very carefully.

It is hardly a polemic to question what precisely was approved in 2001 and what is the difference between what was approved and what was promulgated.

If what is with us today is what was approved then I can say without hesitation that somebody in the OC was snoozin'!!

Whether that was a planned nap or a spontaneous one or not one at all, has yet to be demonstrated, but the errors in text and catechesis are severe enough for me to say that either the OC was asleep at the wheel or the Father David is not telling the whole truth and nuthin' but the truth.

It is not a polemic to say "What the dickens is this mess?" when clearly there is a textual and theological mess placed in front of us as spiritual food.

I don't eat rot out of the grocery store and I surely do not expect to find it served up liturgically!!

Mary

The Missal of Paul VI was not an 'error', but it's translations and general implementation were.

There's not much wrong with the Recensio Rutena, but what has been done to it in the RDL is an 'error'.

I have never called the Missal of Paul VI an error, but it is often erroneously called the Mass of Vatican II. It is not, and was never, the mass of the council. The Vatican II mass is the missal of 1964-1965.

I was refering not to the translation but to the abbreviations and rubrical changes. Both the 70 Missal and 07 Liturgicon have them in respect to the books that preceded them. Some have claimed that the 07 Liturgicon is a different Liturgy or Rite and I reject this, as Pope Benedict rejects this claim against the 70 Missal. It is certainly a new Usage but still the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom/St. Basil.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I wonder how many people who left the Latin Rite for the BCC will now return.

Saying that a liturgical form is a new order is not the same as calling it a different rite.

I suspect that about as many as are told to "go home"...maybe more.

M.

I agree Mary - we should be more properly using terms such as "New Usage" or "New Ordo" rather than "New Rite".

I would suggest the term "the Missal of Pope Paul VI" or something similar. That is both accurate and non-controversial. Most people who attend the "Novus Ordo" have never heard the phrase in their lives and have no idea what it means.

Fr. Serge

Dear Deacon Lance,

I never suggested that the '70s Missal was full of errors, but I've never really studied it. I have read something about ICEL, and the problems with the translation into English. I think it is generally felt to be inadequate, and the bishops are planning to correct it. That is the directive of 'Liturgiam authenticam' which asks for clear, elegant, accurate, faithful, and complete translations. ICEL clearly failed to do that, which is a problem.

The errors are in the translations and revisions in the new Liturgicon. It is a revision, and a bad one too. It is not an accurate translation, it introduces controversial rubrics, errors, abbreviations, reorganizations, and agenda driven language, that has no place whatsoever in our Liturgical books. It is full of errors, and they have been pointed out.

Is my language polemical? Yes, I suppose so. But I will not call what is bad, good. And I will not call what is good, bad. The revision is a mistake, an error, and it is full of errors.

I object to any suggestion that we should be encouraged by the Pope's new permission to use the old Latin Liturgy, because I don't want the '65 Liturgicon to be 'permitted' as an alternative at certain times and certain places to the revised Liturgy.

I want the Revised Liturgy banned, trashed, and condemned as a mistake, also full of mistakes.

The Ruthenian recension, and our beautiful heritage has been banned and forbidden, outlawed and replaced. The language of the promulgation is harsh and uncompromising, giving no sympathy for those who find this liturgical revolution difficult. The Liturgy that was dear to me, and the songs that have been my prayer for 40 years, have been tossed out by my Church. I find it abusive and offensive and deeply hurtful.

You ask me to use a more polite tone. But it is the Church that has used a harsh tone, my pastor called it 'bullying'. We had hoped he would not cave in to the pressure and would leave our prayers in peace, just the way they were. But his loyalty to the Church, and his loyalty to the priesthood were questioned! Our pastor is almost 50 years a priest, and he doesn't deserve to be spoken to like that.

You ask me to use a more polite tone. But there is no sign that anyone is listening, to polite petitions, reasoned letters, or public complaints.

You ask me to use a more polite tone. Well my letters to Archbishop Schott were very polite, and carefully courteous. But he didn't even send a postcard to say that he got them and read them. There was no answer at all. Was that polite?

My polite tone is finished. These books have to be scrapped, they're a bad implementation of a bad idea.

I dare Archbishop Schott to call a clergy meeting of our Metropolia. I challenge him to have a gathering of lay people, elected representatives from the parishes. I dare him to gather together all the parish advisory boards, and hear in an open meeting the feeling of the people about these books.

If I were there, I would be polite. But I am grieving, my Liturgy has been trashed by this committee. These books are awful, and we deserve better.

The Pope's new letter is not really helpful in our situation, this is not a case of two legitimate forms of the one Liturgical tradition. I think the revision is illegitimate, and a bastard form of the Liturgy. I don't think it should exist alongside our beautiful Ruthenian recension.

I will admit it, my tone is polemical, but I loved my Liturgy the way it was, and now it has been taken from me. And there was no funeral, there was no sermon or eulogy, there was no singing of 'eternal memory'. It is just gone.

I just don't know what else to do, or how else to express my sorrow.

Nick

Perhaps even jotting some thoughts down as you have will be of some comfort, and have recourse to the Mother of God "Joy of all who Sorrow".

Well, yes. I suppose. It is funny, but I always felt comfort in Church. I used to go to Church, when I needed to be supported in a difficult season. I would sing, and I would hear my grandmother singing next to me, I would hear that generation of faith, and sing the way they sang. Now... I go to Church, and their voices are silent. It may sound strange, but my grandmother is no long there.

I will look to the "joy of all who sorrow" and pray. I still hope my Church will come to its senses.

Nick