Francis,

Your point (valid in its analysis of English) fails because His Holiness wrote in German.

A paragraph from the article cited just above, in the section "Breaking with the past":

Ratzinger’s third major criticism of the liturgical reform was that whatever its virtues, the new missal, both in particular sections and in its entirety, leaves the impression of a rupture with the past, and can seem contrived. It resembles more a compilation by a committee of professors than the organic development of a truly living liturgy. “In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy,” Ratzinger wrote. “We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

And, two paragraphs further down:

Ratzinger’s claim that the organic development of the liturgy gave way in the liturgical reform to “fabricated liturgy” raises a more fundamental question, albeit one that he himself never confronted directly: Does the pope possess the moral or even the legal right to make radical revisions to the Church’s liturgy? There had been a great many changes to the Roman liturgy over the centuries, to be sure, but they had been gradual and organic, and typically imperceptible. There was never anything like what happened in 1969-1970.

The article I posted above was written just after the MP of 2007. For those of you who read it in full, will realize that what was finally restored through the MP of 2007 has now been reversed and the Orwellian spectre now is fully unleashed upon us as it parallels and gives rise to a New World Order and a Christless Single World Religion.

As a German native speaker I can confirm what's been written above about the wording of pope B-XVI. (Maybe it is an interesting exercise for language scholars to compare what he said on the subject in different languages.)

I believe the critique on 'fabrication' is to be taken in the larger context of modernity with its attempts to technicaqlly 'improve' on God's creation. We 'make' the New City, the New Man, the New Church... maybe the pope and the curia fell pray to a thinking that they were the 'makers' of doctrine and discipline...

BTW organic development isn't about undoing what has been done wrong in the past, rather about discerning what changes done at the basis (even out of disobedience!) are good/bad and therefore should be maintained/suppressed.
With respect to post-1971 organic developments there is maintanance work to do.

@Ora

On the other hand, *all* of the Benedictine OF Masses at our abbey are beautiful, reverent, and in Gregorian chant with a degree of solemnity (incense, organ) befitting the occasion.

Beauty as modern society generally recognises, is in the eye of the beholder, I am sure that Fr. James Martin think his masses are beautiful too. As for true timeless beauty, an "banal product" can never be beautiful, "Gregorian chant with a degree of solemnity (incense, organ)" are only makeup if what is underneath is an 'artificial' or 'manufactured' product of the 1960's.
I am glad that people think the N.O. can be 'beautiful', I am glad that they find it helpful to their prayer life etc. that really is wonderful. Unfortunately many people also find it not beautiful and a hinderance to their prayer life. To say we can swop between them and please everybody just is not possible, as we can see in the comments above.

We must also remember all those millions of young people in England, that have grown up with the N.O. mass, but made their confirmation Mass their last Mass. Remember our Catholic schools have a 97% lapsation rate! In the British Social attitude survey they could not find one young man that would admit to being Catholic, we can all see how that can pan out.

Arguing about the Liturgy, is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. My Diocese has been declared a missionary diocese... We are arranging new Catechetical programmes, and these all focus on tradition. Some years ago a group of Trads took over the diocese teaching centre, while they have found the position untenable (One employee would attend the SSPX each morning before work). The seeds they have planted are bearing fruit, many of the N.O. people involved now prefer attending the TLM.

The Church did not begin with Vat II, and the first true Masses did not start with the N.O. Missal, too many people seem to think this is the case but is is false. "We are told by their fruits you will know them"... We have instructions in the scriptures and examples of evangelisation from the lives of the Saints, if we are not a successful as them we either are lacking in prayer, good works, or our message is not of God.

Here in the Netherlands we are happy to build on sand instead of mud.
At least the secular environment isn't hostile any more, general knowledge on chistianity is so poor that people don't even know how to hate the Church any more.

Our new bishop has youth & family high on his agenda, unfortunately the intended tour of his new staff members through the parishes has to start yet due to covid restictions...

The iconoclasts are not just a product of a previous century. They are alive and well today and have wreaked havoc in modern church buildings. They are plain and unadorned enough to make the heart of any Calvinist happy - assuming Calvinist hearts are ever happy.

And, it is important to address the written content of the Missal, not just the external elements. As I mentioned before, perhaps in another thread, there is a crisis in the Faith regarding the Real Presence.

As much as I prefer the Gregorian Gradual and Alleluia (from the Graduale) to the Responsorial Psalm and Gospel Acclamation (from the Lectionary), both of which are licit options in the Novus Ordo, I doubt that the loss of belief is the result of the Responsorial Psalm.

However, lex orandi statuat legem credendi: I do think that the change in the Offertory is part of the problem. The Offertory Prayers of the Roman Rite, which are themselves a later element, added purposefully to underscore this fact, namely, that the bread and wine will become the Body and Blood of Christ, and that the priest is offering a propitiatory sacrifice. The Novus Ordo Offertory, which is often spoken aloud, speak only of bread of life (sic) and spiritual drink (sic), and the notion of sacrifice is diminished. Is it any wonder of the lack of belief? Lex orandi statuat legem credendi.

(When I get to my office tomorrow I will look at my UCC Service Book and Hymnal, my Lutheran Hymnal, and my Book of Common Prayer (Rite II)...something in the back of my mind tells me that the offertory prayers in these books is identical to the Novus Ordo.)

Well, Archbishop Vigano has written a response to TC in which he states that the Church has a non-Catholic pope:

We have come to the point that even simple people with little knowledge of doctrinal issues understand that we have a non-Catholic pope, at least in the strict sense of the term. This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.

Source: https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2021/07/31/archbishop-vigano-responds-to-the-theft-of-the-mass-of-all-ages-by-pope-francis/

But I'm not going to speculate nor accuse him of schism or heresy.

He asserts that the new Mass and the post-Vatican II Church are different in kind, not degree, from the pre-conciliar Mass and Church such that the new Mass and the post-Vatican II Church are in substantial, ontological rupture with the pre-conciliar Mass and Church, such that the post-Vatican II Church is a "new religion":

Francis has once again disavowed the pious illusion of the hermeneutic of continuity, stating that the coexistence of the Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible because they are expressions of two irreconcilable doctrinal and ecclesiological approaches. On the one hand there is the Apostolic Mass, the voice of the Church of Christ; on the other there is the Montinian “Eucharistic celebration,” the voice of the conciliar church. And this is not an accusation, however legitimate, made by those who express reservations about the reformed rite and Vatican II. Rather it is an admission, indeed a proud affirmation of ideological adherence on the part of Francis himself, the head of the most extremist faction of progressivism. His dual role as pope and liquidator of the Catholic Church allows him on the one hand to demolish it with decrees and acts of governance, and on the other hand to use the prestige that his office entails to establish and spread the new religion over the rubble of the old one.

But I'm not going to speculate nor accuse him of schism or heresy.

And:

And what is even more absurd is that while we hear it said with impunity that the Tridentine Mass ought to be abolished because it is incompatible with the ecclesiology of Vatican II, as soon as we say the same thing — that is, that the Montinian Mass is incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology — we are immediately made the object of condemnation, and our affirmation is used as evidence against us before the revolutionary tribunal of Santa Marta.

But I'm not going to... you get the point.

TLM Protestantism is a thing.

You are entitled to your opinions, Mark, so you can accuse Catholics of being "TLM protestants" all you want (never mind that traditional Catholics don't think the way they do solely because of liturgical differences and thus "TLM Protestants" in the sense that the term implies is not even accurate).

You're right, everything Vigano is saying (and most of what traditional Catholics have been saying before him since at least the 1970s if not before) absolutely is wrong, IF it is true that popes can't err, that councils can't err even in disciplinary and non-dogmatic manners, and that therefore anyone who disagrees with said popes/councils is automatically schismatic.

Luckily, that's not true, and more people are waking up to the reality of the crisis, particularly under Pope Francis and particularly the last 1-3 years.

The Catholic faith is worth literally nothing - or at least it is worth no more and no less than any religious institution - if it all hinges upon agreeing with everything a pope or a council says with no qualifications, and upon obeying without any qualifications.

Whatever value Vatican II may have had in the 60s, it is largely not relevant today, in the sense that it aimed to address the world and the Catholic Church of the 1960s. I am not necessarily saying that Vatican II is all inherently bad, or that some of it couldn't be read today to the benefit of some people. But I am saying that the world and the Church are much different in the 2020s, and it would behoove Vatican II enthusiasts and especially everyone who has care of souls to recall that we have a 2000 year tradition to draw from, and that in the context of all those 2000 years, Vatican II is not even close to the epitome of the Catholic faith.

Mark,

I don't think you've read properly what he has written. He wrote not that he asserts the rupture, but that

Francis has once again disavowed the pious illusion of the hermeneutic of continuity, stating that the coexistence of the Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible because they are expressions of two irreconcilable doctrinal and ecclesiological approaches. On the one hand there is the Apostolic Mass, the voice of the Church of Christ; on the other there is the Montinian “Eucharistic celebration,” the voice of the conciliar church. And this is not an accusation, however legitimate, made by those who express reservations about the reformed rite and Vatican II. Rather it is an admission, indeed a proud affirmation of ideological adherence on the part of Francis himself, the head of the most extremist faction of progressivism.

Your impersonation of Marc Anthony is a bit off. In both your case and his, something doesn't make sense, but all the Archbishop has done is point out that when the same claim (that a rupture exists) is made by those attached to the traditional forms and expressions of the Catholic faith, they are accused of heresy and schism, but when the reigning pontiff makes the same claim nobody seems to blink.

Salieri - I agree that there seems to have been a widespread loss of understanding of the Mass as The Holy Sacrifice. And that the offertory prayers which were dropped were a late addition to the Mass to express this. But I am quite unclear how a group of prayers said silently by the celebrant would impinge on the general awareness.

I thought I would share this with all of you so you could see how the NO Latin was celebrated in my parish. This booklet was published in 1970 and became the model for the NO Latin Mass at St. Mary's in Akron, Ohio from 1970 to 2005 or 35 years. As choir member from 1977-2010, you acquire things and I became an archivist of sorts. Please note the English portions of this booklet are out of date with todays vernacular translation. But again, I believe this could be a model for all parishes to follow to bring EF and OF toward the NO Latin.

When I was singing in the choir we celebrated one Mass in the NO Latin on the last Sunday of the month at 10am. The parish had a 5:30 Saturday Vigil, and 8, 10 and 12 Sunday Masses. The bulletin, would always announce that the last Sunday of the month at 10 o'clock Mass would be Latin. So there were no surprises unless you were a visitor from out of town. And as it was generally known, we had many out-of-towners who came to Mass.

The booklet promotes the Missa de Angelis setting but we did not use this setting all the time, our go-to Latin Mass setting was Mass in G by La Hache. During my time in the choir we also used other Mass settings which might curl the toes of some proponents of the St. Gregory Society. Also, every other year at Christmas and Easter we celebrated the NO Latin at the Christmas Eve Mid-night Mass and Easter Vigil Mass.

The particulars of the Mass in general were that all the sung Mass parts were sung in Latin. That is, the Kyrie, Gloria w/priest intoning "Glory to God in the highest", the Credo was never sung, we all recited the Procession of Faith, Sanctus and Benedictus, and Agnus Dei. We did not use much chant which is one reason the Missa de Angelis Mass setting was not used very often. The readings were always in English and there was no last gospel.

The chanted parts were the Pater Notster, and I distinctly recall the organist quietly surfing the organ keys to find the pitch that the priest was using when he intoned "Praeceptis salutaribus moniti", since the choir responded in the same Key, sometimes the priest was in the key of Z, meaning somewhere between a white and black key. This was particularly true of the Pastor Fr. Hilkert. The organist and the celebrant would always meet before Mass to discuss any details needed for the celebration and Fr. Hilkert was known to joke that he wanted the names of all the choir members who laughed when he was singing! I digress...

Eucharist prayer 1 was always used and if the celebrant was comfortable chanting it in Latin he did so and the choir responded accordingly in Latin where this little booklet indicates. If he was not comfortable he would us English, but always Eucharistic prayer 1.

We also had a four hymn pattern during this time at St. Mary's, Entrance, Offertory, Communion, Recessional. We used the WLP missalette and without fail the Entrance and Recessional were in English, to allow parishioners to participate. The Offertory and Communion hymns where in Latin. Usually, before Mass and just after the Rosary, the choir would sing a devotional hymn. Since our patron was the Mother of God, many of our devotional hymns were in honor of her. The Mass ended and the priest if he chose and mostly he did, would say give the final blessing in Latin.

As I mentioned above Christmas and Easter followed the same pattern, except we might sing the Christmas Carol Mass by Korman or Mass of the Infant Jesus by Marsh, for Mid-night and Christmas Day. We always had a half hour program of Christmas music. Easter was very special too. As many of the old rites as were permitted by Vatican 2 were observed, Christmas and Easter even more so.

I ask that before you vizirate eviscerate my short recollection and this small booklet , take a moment to consider how this could be a model to be used in your parish. If our Bishop's are true to the new Moto Proprio, there will need to be a path forward. This small booklet from the past could be the model of the path forward. It offers enough of the old rite and enough of the new mass.

Don,

Before I accidentally vizirate your short recollection and the attached booklet, what does vizirate mean? I've never seen the word before. [Please note, I'm being perfectly serious].

I had some vision of a Muslim governing system: a vizir-ate?

For the record, I think Ron Conte's argument is the better of the two.

Given what you've already said about Peter, I'm hardly surprised that you prefer Ron Conte's argument. In fact, I have trouble believing that you think that Peter ably stated and argued his position.

But let that pass.

To get back to the title of the thread, "TLM Protestant" is oxymoronic. He who stands with what the Church has always taught can't be one who disagrees with that same teaching.

Sedevacantism and attachment to the old mass are two completely separate things. I’ll grant that some tlm’ers are sedes, bug hardly all—and by a long shot at that.

For the record, Mark, I think it might be a mistake to use the title Dr. for the gentleman. I did not find any information about his education on his website, which seems unusual.

Thanks.

@tomjaw - in the 50s & 60s I do not recall seeing anybody at a Sunday Mass consulting, or even carrying, a Missal. When serving, at a side altar, which I did for several years on a Friday morning, I did take my father's 1923 edition, and I would usually be able to locate one of the collects (etc.) and follow along. I only ever followed the ordinary to marvel at how fast some celebrants could get through it.
That all changed when the vernacular started coming in. I got caught up in the prayer, I was now praying, not simply letting the priest pray on my behalf. So the prayer affects my mind. Whether that has anything to do with its effectiveness I do not know. But I am very sure that talk of the efficacy of prayer can lead into a maze of elephant traps.

The mention of post-1962 editions recalls one of the points made in the canonist's analysis mentioned above: passages of TC referring to the "edition prior to 1970" are placing restrictions on the use of the 1965 Missale Romanum.

Outrageous, I say! :-)

in the 50s & 60s I do not recall seeing anybody at a Sunday Mass consulting, or even carrying, a Missal.

The only ones I ever saw using the Rosary were the prototypical 'little old ladies.' Well over half of my fellow parish members had and used hand-missals. About 30% used neither.

It is not up to us to "judge" whether they were actively participating, either. Nor is it up to any other frequent commenter on this board. At my current parish, which has both OF and EF Masses, all celebrated with reverence and dignity, about 40% of the congregation does not sing the hymns. Does this mean that they are not fulfilling the 3rd Commandment, or the first Law of the Church?

Or that they are in schism?

Tweaking a pre-existing rite with small changes and promulgating a rite that is so different and new it is literally called the NOVUS ORDO by the pope doing it, clearly is not only a difference in degree but in kind. Legitimate authority is irrelevant in a certain respect. You are trying to equivocate two actions that are simply not the same.

abolish ...an older form

is precisely the point at issue. I think you'll find that this question never occurred to anyone to ask, for the answer was straightforwardly obvious: no one would do such a foolish thing.

Since Vatican II called for a reform of the liturgy as it existed in 1962, celebrating this unreformed liturgy is an implicit rejection of the call for reform and thus a rejection of Vatican II.

Since Vatican II called for imparting "an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful", celebrating the liturgy created after Vatican II which has failed to impart such vigor is an implicit rejection of Vatican II.

Points to be grappled with....