MAY 2003
Paschaltide
volume 14, no. 28

The Germs of G.I.R.M.



Part Seventy-six: Purposefully Protestant

    "If the Mass communicates with solemnity the fact that it is taking us back to Calvary - and forward in time to Heaven, then the faithful will be better prepared to receive Holy Communion with fervor and to cooperate with the graces received therein to scale the heights of sanctity, understanding the order in society is premised upon order within individual souls. If the Mass, on the other hand, communicates that which is casual and worldly, then the people will be slothful in their attitude towards the reception of Holy Communion and will not see that they have any duty to Catholicize the world. The new Mass is the enshrinement of all that popes and saints have shed their blood to prevent from infiltrating the Church. It is an abomination that has destroyed the sense of the universality of the Church and the permanence of First and Last Things."

Paragraph 386 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:

    "The restoration of the Roman Missal, carried out in our time in accordance with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, has taken great care that all the faithful may engage in the celebration of the Eucharist with that full, conscious and effective participation which is required by the nature of the Liturgy itself and to which the faithful, in virtue of their state, have a right and duty. In order, however, that the celebration may respond more fully to the norms and to the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy, in this Institutio and in the Order of Mass certain other points of accommodation and adaptation are put forward that are left to the judgement either of the diocesan Bishop or of the Conference of Bishops."

Comment and Analysis: Rank ecclesiastical positivism. GIRM begins its conclusion as it began its introduction: asserting lies as truths. The new Mass is not the "restoration" of the Roman Missal. It is the imposition of a synthetic liturgy constructed by at least one Mason and at least six Protestants (in addition to a number of liberal Catholics) that is founded in false presuppositions. The new Mass is a falsification of the living liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite. It represents the triumph of the very antiquarianism condemned by Pope Pius XII, is an exercise in the canonization of the now disproved speculations of Pius Parsch, and lends itself to a never ending series of mutations based upon nebulous and ever-changing standards of "inculturation." It is, as I have stated in this analysis, ultimately harmful to the life of the Church and of the faithful, admitting, obviously, that there are believing priests who try to do their best with what they have been given (I will have more to say on this in my conclusion). The Church has become congregational and idiosyncratic. The Mass celebrated in most places in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church is now dependent upon where it is celebrated, who celebrates it, the particular needs and demands of who attends it, and the unceasing imposition of concepts alien to Catholicism on the part of local bishops and national episcopal conferences.

   Again, as I noted at the beginning of this analysis, to assert that the new Mass has been constructed so as to assure the "full, conscious and effective participation" of the faithful is to imply that the Mass of Tradition required the faithful to be unconscious and inert. If the Mass that was the norm, albeit with a few changes made by Pope Saint Gregory the Great, in the Latin rite for nearly 1500 years was so harmful, then how come it produced so much sanctity in the lives of the faithful? Or is that precisely the point? Do the modern sophisticates responsible for the planning and continuing evolution of the new Mass believe that it is no longer necessary to stress the need to root out sin from our lives, and that the prayers of the Mass need to remind us that we cannot be holy unless we are serious about rooting our sin from our lives? Revolutionaries, as I have stated repeatedly in this analysis, need to stake their claim to legitimacy on representing the "needs of the people." However, the Catholic in the pew was not agitating for the changes that took place in 1969 and which evolve more radically as the years progress. Many Catholics were in fact alienated from the Church as a result of these unprecedented changes. GIRM represents a whole-scale assault upon the very foundations of the Faith in the context of the unbloody re-presentation of Our Lord's Sacrifice on Calvary.

   As Pope Pius XI noted in Quas Primas in 1925:

    "For people are instructed in the truths of the faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of the sacred mysteries than by any pronouncement, however weighty, of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year-in fact, for ever. The Church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of himself with profit for his spiritual life."

   That is, people learn from the Mass. If the Mass communicates with solemnity the fact that it is taking us back to Calvary - and forward in time to Heaven, then the faithful will be better prepared to receive Holy Communion with fervor and to cooperate with the graces received therein to scale the heights of sanctity, understanding the order in society is premised upon order within individual souls. If the Mass, on the other hand, communicates that which is casual and worldly, then the people will be slothful in their attitude towards the reception of Holy Communion and will not see that they have any duty to Catholicize the world. The new Mass is the enshrinement of all that popes and saints have shed their blood to prevent from infiltrating the Church. It is an abomination that has destroyed the sense of the universality of the Church and the permanence of First and Last Things.

   In addition to asserting the positivistic notion that the new Mass is for the good of the faithful, Paragraph 386 in essence vitiates anything in GIRM that has a remote resemblance to permanency in the new Mass, giving the bishops great latitude to make arbitrarily or to petition the Holy See for adaptations in the new Mass. In other words, GIRM has no real meaning except that which is determined by a local Bishop or the national episcopal conferences. Indeed, it can be asserted that GIRM desires those who read it to get lost in the trees of various regulations that appear to be somewhat connected, however tenuously, to true concepts of the Mass in order that they will not see the forest that covers those concepts with the darkness of deceit and instability.

   As a priest who has reviewed this analysis noted, "The highest form of participation in the Mass by the faithful is their unworthy reception of Holy Communion. No amount of ushering, lectoring, singing, clapping, processing will take away the slightest sin of theirs. Only the Mass and their worthy participation will save them"

Paragraph 387 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:

    "The diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom in some sense the life in Christ of its faithful is derived and is dependent, must foster, govern and watch over the liturgical life in his diocese. To him are assigned in this Institutio the governance of the discipline of concelebration (see n. 202), the establishment of norms about service to the priest at the altar (see. n. 107), about the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (see n. 283), and about the construction and ordering of church buildings (see nos. 291-294). However, his primary task is to nourish the priests, the deacons and the faithful with the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy."

Comment and Analysis: The key to Paragraph 387 is the final sentence, which is GIRM's mandate to diocesan Bishops to see to it that everyone is imbued with absolute adherence to the spirit of the new Mass without any dissent whatsoever. Bishops are to make positivistic statements claiming that the new Mass has been successful in "restoring" the Roman rite to its mythological pristine purity. They are to "educate" priests about how bad the past was and to teach them to accept the new order of things without complaint. And they are to use the full weight of their episcopal authority to browbeat any member of the lay faithful who raises objections about the liturgical and theological foundations, no less the actual implementation, of a Mass founded on false principles alien to the Catholic Faith. The word, "nourish" in the final sentence of this paragraph should be "brainwash."

Paragraph 388 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:

    "The adaptations spoken of below, which call for a wider degree of coordination, are to be decided, in accordance with the norm of law, within the Conference of Bishops."

Comment and Analysis: As envisioned by Paragraph 22 of Sacrosanctum Concilium (The Sacred Constitution of the Liturgy), the national episcopal conferences are given great power to further destroy the Mass, and to do so on a regular basis. This disregards the fact that the bureaucrats, both clerical and lay, who populate the infrastructure of those conferences are revolutionaries in their own right. It is these apparatchiks who control the agenda of the semi-annual meetings of the bishops, who are treated as mere functionaries. Reams upon reams of paper are foisted upon the bishops just weeks in advance of a particular meeting, making it next to impossible for any bishop who wants to prevent further bleeding in the new liturgy to make himself as informed as he can be about the nature of various proposals and amendments. No, the appartchiks believe that the bishops exist to give perfunctory and uncritical approval to everything they put in front of them. The fact that the indults desired by those appartchiks (concerning the posture of the faithful for the reception of Holy Communion) actually were granted recently by the Holy See tells us that there is no "springtime for the liturgy" at the cement palace that serves as the headquarters of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is full speed ahead for the continued attacks upon our living liturgical tradition.

Paragraph 389 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:

    "It is the competence of the Conferences of Bishops in the first place to prepare and approve an edition of this Roman Missal in the authorized vernacular languages, so that once the acts have been given the recognition of the Apostolic See, it may be used in the regions to which it is proper. Whether in the Latin text or in the legitimately approved translations into vernacular languages, the Roman Missal is to be published whole and entire."

Comment and Analysis: As I noted earlier in this analysis, nearly thirty-five years have been wasted attempting to translate prayers that are defective in their communication of the truths of the Faith from the Latin into the languages of the world. This process has been complicated all the more by the ideological bent of such organizations as the now-defunct International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL), which worked hand-in-glove with the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy (BCL) to impose translations from the Latin into the English that further degraded the sensus fidei and served the agenda of feminists by their repeated attempts to get "gender-inclusive" language approved by the Holy See for both "horizontal" and "vertical" usages.

   Yes, the Holy See finally put an end to ICEL. How much energy was wasted to do so? How much time, which could have been spent more profitably on cleaning out the dissidents and heretics from Catholic schools and colleges and universities and seminaries, was wasted to do so? All of this is the result of the needlessness of the new Mass itself, which has needlessly agitated Catholics about matters that never came up before. Instead of focusing on our own sanctification and the Catholicization of the world, a lot of believing Catholics have had their energies directed almost exclusively to trying to find the "correct implementation" of the new Mass according to the mind of Pope Paul VI and how to forestall what they viewed as aberrations in that implementation. This is all diabolical, especially when you consider that the new Mass as it has been implemented is indeed the mind of Pope Paul VI and the man he trusted so much, the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini.

Paragraph 390 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:

    "It is up to the Conferences of Bishops, once their acts have been given the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to define for introduction into the Missal itself the adaptations which are indicated in this General Institutio and in the Order of Mass, such as:-the gestures and posture of the faithful (see nos. 24, 43); the gestures of veneration to the altar and the Book of the Gospels (see n. 273); the texts of the chants at the entry, at the preparation of the gifts and at communion (see nos. 48, 74, 87); the readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (see n. 262); the form of the gesture of peace (see n. 82); the manner of receiving Holy Communion (see n. 160); the material for the altar and the sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form and color of the liturgical vestments (see nos. 301, 236, 329, 339, 342-343). Directories or Pastoral Instructions which the Conferences of Bishops judge useful may, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See, be introduced into the Roman Missal at a suitable location."

Comment and Analysis: That is, there are hardly any parts of the Mass that contain binding precepts upon the national episcopal conferences. Almost everything if fungible, and the American bishops, as noted before, eagerly sought - and received - permission from the Holy See to, among other things, mandate standing, a sign of arrogant equality with the Son of God made Man as we receive Him in Holy Communion, as the posture for the reception of Holy Communion. The indults granted by the Holy See may then be published by an episcopal conference in the form of a "directory" or a set of "pastoral instructions" to be published in their edition of the Roman Missal for their country (in the vernacular, obviously). This gets worse in Paragraph 395.

Paragraph 391 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:

    "It is for the same Conferences to exercise special care as to the translations of the biblical texts which are used in the celebration of Mass. For it is from Sacred Scripture that the readings are taken which are read out and which are explained in the homily, that the Psalms are sung, and it is with the breath and under the influence of Scripture that the liturgical prayers, orations and chants are suffused, in order that the actions and signs may draw their meaning from Scripture. Language should be used which corresponds to the capacity of the faithful and which is suitable for public proclamation, while maintaining those characteristics that are proper to the different manner of speaking employed in the biblical books."

Comment and Analysis: What in the world was wrong with the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible in English? I know, not relevant enough to the genius and life experiences of modern humankind. Again, energy is further wasted on projects mandated by a synthetic liturgy which is founded upon the belief that man knows more now than he did at the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great about what is "relevant" in the context of Holy Mass.

   Hidden in this paragraph is a definite bias against Sacred Tradition. The basis of many of the prayers in the Traditional Latin Mass is Sacred Tradition in addition to Sacred Scripture. GIRM shows its bias against Sacred Tradition, which is a theme common to the revolutionaries of the postconciliar era. If something is not in Scripture, then it can't be referred to in the context of Mass. There is a word for this novelty: it is called PROTESTANTISM. Luther and Calvin and Wesley and Knox and Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson all reject Sacred Tradition, as well as the notion that it is possible for any priest to make Christ incarnate under the appearance of bread and wine. The new Mass is both anti-Tradition and anti-incarnational, especially when it emphasizes the word "banquet" over and over and over again, de-emphasizing references to the unbloody perpetuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

Paragraph 392 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:

    "It shall likewise be the task of the Conferences of Bishops to prepare with care a translation of the other texts, in such a way that while respecting the nature of each language, the sense of the original Latin text is fully and faithfully rendered. In carrying this out, it is well to keep in mind the different literary genres which are employed in the Missal, such as the presidential orations, the antiphons, acclamations, responses, litanic supplications, and so on. Care must be taken that the translation of the texts is not undertaken in the first place with a view to meditation but rather to their being read out aloud or sung in the course of a celebration. Language should be used which is accommodated to the faithful of the area, but which is nevertheless noble and marked by literary quality. There will remain the need for some catechesis on the biblical and Christian meaning of certain words and expressions. It is appropriate that in areas which have the same language, the same translation be used for liturgical texts, especially in so far as possible for biblical texts and for the Order of Mass."

Comment and Analysis: People have been employed full time around the world to translate the Latin editio typica of the Novus Ordo into the various vernacular languages. More people have been employed by the Holy See to review those translations. Again, so much wasted time. The Missal of Pope Saint Pius V is what it is. Various hand missals exist to provide an aide to the faithful as they hear Holy Mass. Not so, the new Mass, however. A Mass created to involve the faithful "actively" in the liturgy generates manic activity on the part of thousands of people around the world to deal with all of the translations that are necessary to "involve" the people in Mass. Amazing.

   As noted throughout the body of this analysis, many neo-conservatives believe that Liturgian Authenticam (LA) is going to provide the framework for the proper translation of the Latin into the vernacular languages, including English, especially since ICEL is now a thing of the past. Well, who are the bishops going to get to draft the schema for the translation? Remember, most of the American bishops thought ICEL was doing a wonderful job. Furthermore, LA gives each episcopal conference five years simply to devise the schema for doing the translations. And, as I have noted consistently herein, a faithful translation of the Latin found in the Novus Ordo into the vernacular still leaves the Church with a less full-and hence defective-expression of the Faith.

   The conservative mind, however, is very similar to that of liberals, trusting in structures and documents to resolve various problems. A Catholic, though, understands the root causes of problems. And the root cause of the problems associated with the Novus Ordo is the Novus Ordo, in se, itself. No translation is going to fix that which is defective, if not abjectly harmful, of its nature.

Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.


For past installments of G.I.R.M. Warfare in The DAILY CATHOLIC by Dr. Droleskey, see Archives



MAY 2003
Paschaltide
volume 14, no. 28
The Germs of G.I.R.M.
www.DailyCatholic.org

CREDO & CULTURE on the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church   FEATURES & ARTICLES in our op-ed section   DEVOTION & REFLECTION section   DAILY NEWS & INFORMATION   MAIN PAGE of the most current text issue