The bishops reaction (to the Novus Ordo) was hardly enthusiastic. Only 71 synod fathers gave unqualified approval, while 62 wanted changes, 43 rejected it outright and four abstained. Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster was politely scathing, telling the synod that few of the consultors could ever have been parish priests, and that the Missa Normativa would reduce parish congregations to mostly women and children. Antonellis judgment was pithy: The synod of bishops was not a success for the Consilium.
Bullivant identifies the Councils own measure of judgment for liturgical reforms: that they be pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree. Authentic pastoral efficacy is hard to concede given the decline in attendance at the reformed liturgy, and the resurgence of the traditional liturgy, especially among the young. In light of this, Bullivant argues that the logic of the Councils decrees demands that the reformed liturgy be revisited. Dare we do so? Dare we not do so?
posted on 07/22/2020 10:06:45 AM PDT
by ebb tide
To: ebb tide
Seems like a sound basis for returning to the Latin Mass.
Wonder if we'll ever have a Pope who will allow it?
posted on 07/22/2020 10:17:25 AM PDT
by G Larry
(There is no merit in compromising with the Devil.)
To: ebb tide
Beware: Fr Hugh Somerville Knapman OSB is the author of Ecumenism of Blood: Heavenly Hope for Earthly Communion (2018)
Ecumenism of Blood is heresy.
posted on 07/22/2020 12:47:53 PM PDT
(Francis didn't start the Fire)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson