It makes no sense to me that we need to celebrate some other liturgy to know how to celebrate the Novus Ordo as instructed.

What a shocking and truly sad statement.

The church is supposed to hold fast to traditions. The Council specifically told us "The musical tradition of the Universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art."

At the heart of liturgical worship is the reality that we are one, not just with those in the pew next to us, but also with all those who have gone before us. We do join with all the choirs of heaven, the angels and those Christians of past generations who now enjoy the beatific vision, as they endlessly proclaim . . .

The church didn't invent liturgy in 1970.

One of the problems with the implementation of the Council is that it took centuries of music and tradition and stripped it away. How many times was it heard in the seventies and the eighties that, "We don't do that anymore" because it involved Latin, or chant or God forbid, polyphony?

The implementation in the English-speaking world was particularly egregious. We had as a model centuries of Anglican liturgy and music that could have been adopted to the Catholic Latin Rite in the English-speaking world. Instead, it was ignored.

Given a deracinated Catholicism as the model, it is little wonder that people leave the pews for evangelical churches. They do the pseudo-pop better.

Given a deracinated Catholicism as the model, it is little wonder that some flock to TLM.

Given a deracinated Catholicism as the model, it is little wonder that people leave the pews for evangelical churches. They do the pseudo-pop better.

Preach!

At the heart of liturgical worship is the reality that we are one, not just with those in the pew next to us, but also with all those who have gone before us. We do join with all the choirs of heaven, the angels and those Christians of past generations who now enjoy the beatific vision, as they endlessly proclaim . . .

I believe that the 'democracy of the dead' arguments are some of the most damning of the post conciliar deforms... ahem 'reforms'. This is why I harp to the choir that, "just imagine, we are now singing the same melodies and texts known by St. Thomas Aquinas in his monastery..."

I had a shocking (read: absolutely terrifying) revelation one day which came to me in the form of a question: "If St. Teresa of Avila, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Francis deSales, or St. Alphonsus Liguori, or [insert any traditional saint here] walked through the door this instant, would the recognize this as mass? Or would they take one look around and cry that we are imposters who have lost the faith?" I came to the immediate and resolute conclusion that most of them would •not• accept the new liturgy, and among those who might, they would certainly still take great pains to assist at traditional masses given any say in the matter. Make of that what you will. Some will cry that it is mere historical conjecture on my part... which is true. But I know in my heart of hearts that St. Francis of Assisi would weep bitterly if he saw the average novus ordo mass with half-naked women and irreverent priests and awful music in ugly churches with "sacred vessels" of clay sculpted by twelve year olds... and so would the rest of the saints. And I suspect a few of the more fiery saints would drive people out of church with a whip of cords. I cannot shake this feeling no matter how hard I try. I'm not claiming the new mass is invalid. Let me be clear. But it does not perfectly present the faith of our fathers either.

Super flumina Babylonis...

If .. or St. Thomas Aquinas, or St.... walked through the door this instant, would the recognize this as mass?

This old post on NLM was referenced recently : https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2015/07/st-thomas-aquinass-early-commentary-on.html#.YgRBEvjLfIU Reading Aquinas' comments I was struck by his frequent references to the people, the prayers preparing them and the readings instructing them, so I think he would welcome that aspect of the NO.

I think brown is the perfect color for hyperbole, given an earthier near-synonym for hyperbole.

But I wonder then whether brown should be the default post color, with people tagging in black those things which are exact and dispassionate.