Arthur has recently started blogging. I very much hope he will write something about what was actually practiced in England as the changes happened in due course.
Meanwhile a rather interesting post on the pre-Conciliar stages of the reform can be found here. I think I can honestly claim to be the person who alterted Arthur to H.A. Reinhold's fascinating book. I would, with due respect, suggest Arthur has a few dates out and some of the changes he describes happened earlier e.g. bidding prayers appeared in the 1965 Ordo Missae (there is a clue for the Competition still waiting serious entries!)
At the start of his post Arthur writes:
The reform of the Roman Liturgy, which had been substantially unchanged from the time of St Gregory the Great (Pope from September 3rd 590 to March 604), began much earlier than the Second Vatican Council and indeed had nothing to do with that Council.
I couldn't agree more.
What, please, does "as the changes happened in due course" mean?
ReplyDeleteThe changes of 1955, the changes of 1960-62, the changes of 1964-5, the changes of 1967, the changes of 1968 and 1969-70.
ReplyDelete1955 is probably one of the saddest years in the history of the Church.
ReplyDeleteMr. Crumly's article is not only most advantageous but it also provides the answers sought in your competition as you suggest. I find it rather conspiratorial, on the part of the Pius X and onward “Liturgical Movementists” that the changes were by them first proposed and then gently "slipped into the mix" over the period of approximately two decades (going to the vernacular seems the most obvious change but there are a lot of other whoppers); but the arrogance of the 2000 Missale to claim: "when the Second Vatican Council announced the rules by which the Order of Mass would be revised, it also commanded, among other things that some rites should be restored to the original norm of the holy Fathers, that is, using the same words as St Puis V, written in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, by which, in the year 1570, the Tridentine Missal was promulgated. So indeed, on account of this very agreement of wording, it can be noted how both Roman Missals, despite the intervening four centuries, were intended to comprehend one and the same (aequalem et parem) tradition. If, however, the interior elements of this tradition are considered, it is also clear how admirably and successfully the former is completed by the latter”. It really takes the cake.
ReplyDeleteIn a reversal of good guy/bad guy I’m reminded of Billy Jack saying: “I’m going to take this right foot and I’m going to wop you on that side of your face and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v325wdgoFH4&feature=related
I think Mr. Crumly deserves the Calendar. I’d feel like a plagiarist to cut and paste his work.
God bless you both and thanks for all you do. I meant to specifically thank you at the time but I greatly appreciated your instructions for making the Holy Saturday triple candle.
Dear Fr. LR,
ReplyDeleteAlas some of the dates in Arthur's post are not correct. My comment on his post points out that 'Prayers of the Faithful'/ bidding prayers, as an example reappeared in the 1965 Ordo Missae.
However, the details do not destract from Arthur's excellent article and the point he is making.
Twentieth century liturgical reform was a continuous and contiguous series of incremental changes. The result may be good or bad but there needs to be more transparency and honesty about the process.
Fr. LR can make whatever use he likes of what I've written. I won't consider it plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
Arthur.