Sacrosanctum Concilium

[zorro]

The Vatican II Council's document on the liturgy and the reform of the liturgy was signed by Archbishop Lefevre. So he was for a reform of the liturgy??? Or did he later change his mind, when he saw the NOM??? 

 

[jovan66102]

 

The Vatican II Council's document on the liturgy and the reform of the liturgy was signed by Archbishop Lefevre. So he was for a reform of the liturgy??? Or did he later change his mind, when he saw the NOM??? 

 

 

His Excellency was one of the most enthusiastic Liturgical reformers in the pre-Conciliar Church. What he wanted, however, was an organic reform of the TLM  (such as had been going on since Pope St Pius X), which, of course, is what the Council ordered. Upon seeing the NO, created by the "spirit of Vat II", not by order of the Council, he realised where the trend was going and kept saying the Mass of the Ages in its last promulgated form.

[Kephapaulos]

There was really no need for reform. The Mass and calendar had been reformed already a considerable number of times since the time of St. Pius X up to 1962. Why keep changing it? Why end up bringing confusion to the faithful? It seemed to have ended up being used by modernists to support the false assertion that everything must be in constant flux and that everything must evolve in the Church. It seems just odd that some wanted a liturgical reform at Vatican II when Bl. John XXIII had already made reforms of the Mass in 1962. The modernists had an agenda though of course, and it seems they used the fact that there were reforms in their time to help falsly justify their own "reforms" that would come into fruition in the NOM. It all goes back to the New Theology though indeed.

 

EDIT: In the thread linked here http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1524809 there are two parts of a video that gives a good explanation and presentation of some details about certain ideas and events that led to the NOM, and so the video especially then conveys some reasons how and why the NOM is strikingly different from the TLM.

[parvenu74]

I recommend the following article on the topic of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ferrara.htm

The document gives the appearance of supporting tradition while at the same time writing in an allowance for dramatic re-writing of all of the rules and texts. The traditionalists signed the document because they believed that nobody would actually use whatever license there was to destroy the liturgy because such a thing had never been done in the past. Therefore, they trusted and they signed. It was still relatively early in the council and this was the first constitution signed, if I recall correctly. Up to this point, there was no reason to suspect that the progressives intended to abuse whatever license was going to be given to them... this attitude changed before the end of the council, however.
 

[Rising_Suns]

The Vatican II Council's document on the liturgy and the reform of the liturgy was signed by Archbishop Lefevre. So he was for a reform of the liturgy??? Or did he later change his mind, when he saw the NOM??? 

 

 

It seems that Archbishop Lefevre's concerns were not with Vatican II, but with the New Mass that came out of it.

 

-Davide

[parvenu74]

It seems that Archbishop Lefevre's concerns were not with Vatican II, but with the New Mass that came out of it.

He objected to more than just simply the new Mass. Here's a snippet of his statement in 1974 which is still the theme of the SSPX in their negotiations/disagreement with Rome:

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to  Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to  preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and  have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant  tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after  the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church. (Click here to read the full version.)