It would be more helpful if you explained what you mean.

Do you mean the question concerns the current Missal of Paul VI, the Novus Ordo Mass itself, as not being a proper institution of Vatican II's liturgical reforms? So is the question about the Novus Ordo itself? Possibly implying that the Missal of Paul VI itself is invalid or defective, even if it were to be celebrated optimally?

Or do you mean the question is about the implementation of the current Missal of Paul VI? That the Missal of Paul VI itself, as promulgated, is valid and satisfactory as a rite, but it frequently is not celebrated well for reasons having nothing to do with defects in the text or rubrics of the Missal?

Were Vatican II's liturgical reforms not properly instituted by virtue of the Missal of Paul VI being devised and promulgated? Should another "revised Mass" have been promulgated instead? Or have the reforms not been properly instituted because those in charge of parish liturgy often don't celebrate the Missal of Paul VI as well as could be done?

Because, you see, there are people who claim the Missal of Paul VI is an error and is defective as a rite and should be suppressed or reversed, but they seldom say so explicitly. Kwasniewski is one of the few who is outspoken in saying precisely that, but it's only been recently that he has begun saying explicitly what he has implicitly expressed for many years.

So rather than making readers guess what you mean, it's a good idea to say what you mean.

What, precisely, is in question about whether the liturgical reforms of Vatican II were properly instituted? What are we talking about?

I think that you're missing the point of His Eminence's words: He isn't saying that the Pauline reform is irreversible in se, he's saying that the Benedictine Reform (aka "Reform of the Reform"), launched in many ways by reconnecting Catholics to their past via Summorum Pontificum, is irreversible.

There are many things which I want to say, but charity demands otherwise.

Or maybe you're afraid what you want to say won't withstand scrutiny or will expose things you don't want exposed about where you stand, and you're hiding behind false virtue for cover as an excuse for not advancing the discussion. Really, I wish people would stop being coy and just say what's on their minds. We're all adults here, and presumably we want what's best for the Church and for her liturgy.

Cardinal Sarah actually has expressed agreement with what I stated in the original post of this thread: that eventually there should be a single reformed liturgical rite for Roman Catholics, not the current state of having TLM and NO Mass together authorized. The current state of affairs is a temporary attempt at a solution to help the Church arrive at a mature and proper implementation of the Missal of Paul VI.

Since there is profound continuity and unity between the two forms of the Roman rite, the two forms must necessarily illuminate and enrich each other. It is urgent that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we examine in prayer and in study how to return to a reformed common rite, always for the sake of reconciliation within the Church.

Source: http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/08/29/liturgy-the-counterstatement-of-cardinal-sarah/

As to the claim that Cardinal Sarah is referring to the irreversibility of Benedict's "reform of the reform" (or reform "within" the reform?) and not the liturgical reform implemented by Paul VI with the new Missal, Benedict's letter accompanying the promulgation of "Summorum Pontificum" stated this:

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

Source: https://zelanti.org/documents/summorum-pontificum/letter-accompanying-summorum-pontificum/

So Benedict himself endorsed the Missal of Paul VI and the liturgical reforms Paul oversaw and implemented. There's no hint that Benedict intended "Summorum Pontificum" to be a sly way of sabotaging Vatican II's liturgical reforms nor undermining the Missal of Paul VI, yet some fringe supporters of the TLM have taken it in precisely that way, which is why Pope Francis would be justified, in my opinion, in curtailing some of the liberties to celebrate the TLM that were granted by "Summorum Pontificum," for the sake of Church unity and assisting the Church in advancing towards realizing Vatican II's liturgical reforms.

Dr K puts it all quite well.

https://remnant-tv.com/video/395/peter-kwasniewski-beyond-summorum-pontificum-retrieving-the-tridentine-heritage?channelName=RemnantTV

@Salieri
I am not a member either, but then I do not live in those United States... I do not see how MarkB and his views are other than one view point. I am sure other CMAA members have opposite view points. The Catholic Church is Universal, and we can all be members without all having exactly the same views on Liturgy and Music, the CMAA is I am sure the same.

MarkB seems to be in the Reform of the Reform camp. I feel sorry for them the TLM steals their members, their own bishops do not always support them, and us Traditionalists will not darken the doors of their churches.

Please can we not fall out over the written word, we do not want a Forum with only one voice, we need multiplicity of opinions, knowledge and experience.

All that I will say is the proclivity of some members here to respond to OF questions or situations with veiled jabs at the OF/supremacy of the EF, or incredulity that anyone would bother working in an OF environment, says enough to me.

Mark,

Cardinal Sarah doesn't put forward the idea that the reforms of Vatican II are irreversible. He says that the reform put in place by SP is irreversible. Except that the word "irreversible" is in both claims, they have nothing in common.

Cardinal Sarah doesn't put forward the idea that the reforms of Vatican II are irreversible. He says that the reform put in place by SP is irreversible.

As Mark nicely explained with citation, SP takes as a starting point that the Novus Ordo Missae is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, and that future organic development should result from mutual enrichment of the OF and EF.
Therefore, the second part of your statement implies the first part to be true.

I just want to apologize for my previous comment directed toward MarkB, and toward the CMAA.

I haven't attended an EF Mass since the shut-down ended in May of 2020; and I work for a Novus Ordo Parish with a "RotR" style. I am called "A Trad" by Modernists and a "Modernist" by traditionalists, which means I'm probably somewhat in the middle. I do believe that there will be a unified Roman Rite at some point, but (my opinion) that it will be the Roman Rite, with some elements of the Novus Ordo: i.e. that it will be something more akin to the 1965 Missal with a couple extra anaphoras, some new prefaces, and an expanded one-year lectionary with daily readings. I think that some octaves will be restored (Pentecost especially), along with Solemn Mass, but that Missa cum Diacono will be permitted beyond Holy Week, as in the Novus Ordo.

Thanks for the great discussion so far, everyone.

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that some people are straining Pope Benedict's words in Summorum Pontificum the same way others (or maybe many of the same people) are straining the words in his resignation letter?

So in Summorum Pontificum, when Benedict said the Missal of Paul VI is the ordinary form, he didn't mean ordinary in any normative sense, he was just using a clever legal fiction and distinction to accomplish something he couldn't do more straightforwardly or openly, even though he was the pope with supreme juridical authority and universal power in the Church. And similarly in his resignation letter, when he said he was resigning the office of ministry and the See of Peter would be vacant, he didn't mean he was resigning the office of the papacy's munus, he was just using clever verbiage to try to bifurcate the papacy into active and contemplative roles or to make it seem like he was resigning but he had his fingers crossed while he signed the letter and he's winking to everyone who's "in the know" about his real purpose and action and he's still the real pope, just biding his time.

Amazing that perhaps the most brilliant theological mind ever to be pope, one of the clearest theological communicators and most precise and careful thinkers ever to be pope, wrote so cryptically in some of his most important documents that they don't mean what they clearly say. You have to have some gnostic illumination from the secret club to understand what Benedict REALLY meant.

My take is that reform was needed, but the OF is not what we ought to have ended up with. God willing, we will have a superior typical form of the Mass more like the '65 or the Ordinariate form, but I doubt it will happen within my lifetime (and I'm not that old). I love the EF, and would gladly never attend the OF again in my life (though I work in an OF environment). I do not think there is anything about this at all which makes me un-Catholic or schismatic. The OF can be celebrated in Latin and in a beautiful way, but 99% of the time it is not. I agree that trads can be bitter, angry, antisocial goblins, but they are not all that way and, at the end of the day, I don't care. The EF is beautiful and dependable, and that makes it worth dealing with sometimes unpleasant congregants.

I will say, had the "reformers" not taken a wrecking ball to the just about every aspect of Catholic liturgy, maybe people like me wouldn't have to turn to the EF. If we had stuck with something like the '65, I doubt very much that this OF/EF divide would exist. The unfathomably radical departure from any previous form of the Mass is without a doubt what has resulted in many orthodox Catholics shunning the OF. In the current environment, the EF needs to exist. If the OF were significantly reformed, maybe it wouldn't. But we aren't there.

So this is not acceptable:

the proclivity of some members here to respond to OF questions or situations with veiled jabs at the OF/supremacy of the EF, or incredulity that anyone would bother working in an OF environment

But this is fine?

Currently, I don't think any Roman Catholics should be celebrating the TLM exclusively because that at least implies a rejection of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, if not a rejection of the council itself. Attending the NO Mass must be a part of every Catholic's liturgical prayer, and Catholics who have the knowledge, skills and gifts to do so, instead of preserving the TLM indefinitely, must assist local parishes in celebrating the reformed liturgy with more dignity

The first is simply an opinion, which you may or may not agree with, while the second attempts to tell everyone what they should be doing or not doing, beyond what the Church herself has laid down.

It is not "heresy" to believe that the EF is superior to the OF, just as the contrary is not dogma. Rome's approval of traditional orders for the last 30 years disproves any notion that exclusive celebration of the EF is somehow suspect or outside the pale of acceptable Catholicism.

Why not simply let people celebrate and attend the form of the Mass as they wish, as is allowed by current law, and not try to dictate to people what they should and shouldn't do? This is the genius of the Motu Proprio, after all.

Let me throw in what happened in Dijon, France. The archbishop expelled the FSSP from his archdiocese because the two FSSP priests refused to concelebrate at the chrism Mass.

That is a perfect example of TLM adherence being thinly veiled rejection of communion with the post-conciliar Church and rejection of Vatican II. There's no good reason why priests interested in communion with the Church and with their local ordinary would refuse to concelebrate at a Novus Ordo Chrism Mass, which is the Mass that especially signifies communion of all the priests with their bishop. And that was the ONLY participation in an OF Mass that the archbishop asked of the FSSP priests all year long.

Preferring to celebrate the EF, at this time, given current circumstances, is fine. Refusing to celebrate or attend the OF is not acceptable because the OF is ordinary, in the sense of normative for the post-conciliar Church.

Those FSSP priests who refused to concelebrate at an OF Mass reject the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. That's not acceptable because it's contrary to Church unity. That attitude has to be corrected one way or another. Unfortunately, Summorum Pontificum has unintentionally fostered that attitude and made some traditionalist priests liturgically arrogant, as if they are untouchable by the bishop and unaccountable to the wider Church because of the freedoms Benedict's motu proprio gives them.

Mark,

The FSSP priests refused to concelebrate because they refused to concelebrate. In the era of tolerance and options and all the rest, their refusal shouldn't be construed as more than it is.

Attending the event isn't the same as concelebrating. Independent of the question you raise is the very real puzzle of how many Masses are being celebrated if 4 (or 40) priests standing around the altar all pronounce the words of Institution or Consecration.

I am going to insist, however, that Ordinary, as Pope Benedict uses the word in that Motu Proprio does not mean "this is how it should be".

Yes, Charles, they do have implications, but refusing to concelebrate and to elaborate should not be taken in any way as necessarily malicious, any more than someone's silence when I ask him when he stopped beating his wife should be construed as agreement with my premise that he has been beating his wife.

At our Chrism Mass you have a choice, you can put on the polyester rag, and stand with your arm outstretched around a table. You can also put on clerical dress with a lacy cotta, and participate in choir. I believe the age when the M.C.s that would confiscate breviaries from those in choir has now passed. This seems a fair system.

I don't see how a novelty (concelebration) with no real basis in Church history, should now be considered, the only way a priest can be in (yearly) communion with his bishop. Although if you play stupid games you can win stupid prizes.

As for Dijon, it is sad that Trad's should form circular firing squads. Without this pointless acrimony the answer to this problem would be for the FSSP to move out and hand the Apostolates over to the SSPX. We will see no real change, the mutual loathing will continue until the N.O. bishop runs out of priests in a few years.

All that I will say is the proclivity of some members here to respond to OF questions or situations with veiled jabs at the OF/supremacy of the EF, or incredulity that anyone would bother working in an OF environment, says enough to me.

As for this, it would do well to look through the comments over a few years of those members, you may find something interesting...
1. They were running a N.O. music programme in line with the wishes of the Church, and were hounded out of their job and parish because they programmed a piece in Latin once a month.
2. Their Reform of the Reform music programme, that had run successively for many years and was produced from much hard work was destroyed by a new Parish priest within a month of his induction.
3. They work in an N.O. parish and this is the only place they can vent about their frustrations, that will not get them sacked.
4. They originally were in favour of the N.O. and have changed their mind...

I do agree that some comments are not helpful... but then again this is yet another of those popular discussions on this forum that generate more heat than light.

Baloney. Actions have consequences (and implications).

Yes, they certainly do. It is possible to win the battle and lose the war. Sometimes not much significant thought goes into those actions.

I have seen concelebrations with numerous priests involved. The thought has crossed my mind that the program should say, as did the old movie credits for spectaculars, "and a cast of thousands." However, concelebrations are not a hill to die on and don't really seem worth the acrimony involved.

As for Dijon, it is sad that Trad's should form circular firing squads.

Well, they at least make good mustard. The Trads have a gift for shooting themselves in the foot and being their own worst enemies. We often excel at that in the east, too. I have heard it said many times that a Byzantine firing squad is circular.

Mark's comments, whether you agree or not, are confined to a thread explicitly discussing the matter. He isn't traveling onto threads where members are asking for help in an EF context and proselytizing. Moreover, plenty of TLM advocates who insist the NO is "dying out" and "theologically bankrupt/Protestant" seem to be telling us what we should be doing just as much as Mark may.

The comment was not directed at MarkB in particular, but at the view he was expressing, which seems to be getting the upper hand among a certain coterie in Rome these days, and which, as I have argued, goes against both the letter and the spirit of the motu proprio.

Charles... did that cause szchizophrenic thinking?

don't see how a novelty (concelebration) with no real basis in Church history, should now be considered, the only way a priest can be in (yearly) communion with his bishop. Although if you play stupid games you can win stupid prizes.

Really just manipulation...

truthfully embarrassing argument that shows true colors of the cancel culture catholic... let’s face it... that is what this is coming down to... Cancel Culture Catholicism... probably a heresy from another time in history... although I don’t think the church ever turned on her own Rites before... yes? It’s reminds me of a form of Rabidism.

Definition of rabid
1a : extremely violent : FURIOUS
b : going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion
rabid editorials
a rabid supporter
2 : affected with rabies

Rabies is a fatal but preventable viral disease. It can spread to people and pets if they are bitten or scratched by a rabid animal. In the United States, rabies is mostly found in wild animals like bats, raccoons, skunks, and foxes. However, in many other countries dogs still carry rabies, and most rabies deaths in people around the world are caused by dog bites.

The rabies virus infects the central nervous system. If a person does not receive the appropriate medical care after a potential rabies exposure, the virus can cause disease in the brain, ultimately resulting in death. Rabies can be prevented by vaccinating pets, staying away from wildlife, and seeking medical care after potential exposures before symptoms start.

Ironically, this mentality was also identified within the church by the very pope who unleashed the NO himself...

Pope Paul VI (1968): "The Church is in a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what could better be called self-demolition."

Those FSSP priests who refused to concelebrate at an OF Mass reject the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. That's not acceptable because it's contrary to Church unity. That attitude has to be corrected one way or another.

It is stiflingly ironic to me that this be posited. This is precisely what was cried at the promulgation of the new missal. The cry from the beginning has been that the new system split from the old, not the other way around. The changes were so drastic and so many, one couldn't help but feel as though the whole world flipped poles.

I don't deny the nuChurch™ legitimacy, as much as it sometimes grieves me. (I play for a N.O. parish, after all, and I wholeheartedly believe Jesus is in the tabernacle. I also believe the N.O. legitimate but deficient.) But the fact remains that the onus of the burden still lies on the new "traditions" to prove their worth in light of the old, again, not the other way around. I do not believe that anyone should be persecuted for sticking to the old ways, and I believe they still reserve the right to be skeptical of what is [still] novel. The Novus Ordo is still a statistical blip on the radar at this point; people treat IT as though it were the one that had been around for millennia.

People often accuse the radtrads as being too dogmatic; ironically, some of the most dogmatic people I know are novus ordo catholics (for lack of a better term) who are absolutely dogmatic about murdering the old rites and burying them in the back flowerbed—and the sooner the better. It is a two way street; one just hides better in plain sight than the other.

Indeed, francis... I've met resistance many places too, all because I dared to sing chant that had been chanted for over 1000 years in catholic churches worldwide... If only the Catholics of the 50s and 60s were as territorial of their parishes then as the boomers are of their collapsing parishes now... Perhaps we'd be in a different situation.

Hmmm... isn’t this the theologically proper way this should go?

Currently, I don't think any Roman Catholics should be celebrating the NO exclusively because that at least implies a rejection of the authentic Roman Rite of The Catholic Church, if not a rejection of the Church itself. Attending the TLM must be a part of every Catholic's liturgical prayer, and Catholics who have the knowledge, skills and gifts to do so, instead of preserving the NO indefinitely, must assist local parishes in celebrating the authentic rite in its inherent dignity.

I have said this for years and it all falls on deaf ears

authentic Roman Rite of The Catholic Church

No more authentic than any other. It was the authentic Roman Rite at one time but has been revised in our own time. It is now one of the Roman Rites.

I still can't believe all the furor over concelebration once during the year. If this were of earth-shaking importance it would be a different matter. It isn't. If I were in that situation, I would do the once per year mass and even buy the bishop an ice cream cone afterwards. Small price to pay for being left alone the rest of the year. I think some folks just look for trouble.

Charles,

It was the authentic Roman Rite at one time but has been revised in our own time. It is now one of the Roman Rites.

I remember a traditionalist priest (who was himself bi-ritual: Roman and some Eastern rite in full communion with Rome, I forgot which one) explaining that for a very good reason pope B.XVI didn't call the TLM (+ what further belongs to it) a 'rite' but rather the 'extraordinay form' of the Roman rite, in order to avoid that priests could claim that they were 'TLM-only' - and at the same time allowing all 'NO-priests' to say the TLM without additional permission.

dad29,
This priest once held a lecture on the history of concelebration which matches (I believe that you referred to this one) Fr. Hunwicke on concelebration: that newly ordained priests concelebrated their first mass with the bishop, each one his own paten + chalice, saying the entire mass including the Canon - horribile dictu - together with loud voice.

At the same time this priest was very critical on the 'fabricated and a-historical' NO-concelebration, which he said intrinsically lacks ars celebrandi by its very ritual.
After the lecture he was asked if he would ever concelebrate in the NO if requested. "Of course, at several occasions" ... mumbling in the audience ... "after all is a valid and licit way of celebrating; so I never refuse to concelebrate, I just try to avoid getting invited."

But as an act against open and persisting disobedience it is certainly legitimate that

in Dijon, France. The archbishop expelled the FSSP from his archdiocese because the two FSSP priests refused to concelebrate at the chrism Mass.