My first reaction, as with numerous other Pope Francis Papal pronouncements, is, Where is the official Latin text to be found? As of this morning, the Vatican web page of that June 29th, 2022 Apostolic Letter does not provide the Latin typical edition. How is one to know which text is the reference point among the five translations provided?
The sections most relevant to traditional Catholics are nos. 31 and 61.
In 31 Pope Francis erroneously equates Sacrosanctum concilium’s call with the Novus ordo (the Ordinary Form [OF]) of the Roman Rite, which, in fact, was not produced directly by Vatican II but by the "Consilium for the reform of the liturgical books," the liturgical commission set up by Pope Paul VI after the Council and headed by Annibale Bugnini. In saying the OF is the unique expression of the Roman Rite, he asserts a non-fact. Even the Missal of 1570 was never the unique expression of the Roman Rite.
But I concur when he says the problem is “ecclesiological.” The question of liturgical discipline is an important matter for the good of the Church.
In 61 He argues that the approval of Paul VI and of John Paul II is the guarantee of the Novus ordo's conformity with Vat II. “We cannot go back.” And he intends to reestablish “unity.” Here is another error, because the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is not a unitary form of the Roman Rite, notice, for instance, the Neo-Catechumenate form of worship as compared to a Mass of the Charismatic Renewal, and compare that to a papal OF Mass ad orientem, in Latin. "We cannot go back," if it has any meaning, must mean that we cannot delete the reform of the reform by Pope Benedict XVI.
In 61 He argues that the approval of Paul VI and of John Paul II is the guarantee of the Novus ordo's conformity with Vat II. “We cannot go back.” And he intends to reestablish “unity.” Here is another error, because the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is not a unitary form of the Roman Rite, notice, for instance, the Neo-Catechumenate form of worship as compared to a Mass of the Charismatic Renewal, and compare that to a papal OF Mass ad orientem, in Latin. "We cannot go back," if it has any meaning, must mean that we cannot delete the reform of the reform by Pope Benedict XVI.
The vague directives of the Novus ordo necessitate a wide variety of liturgical expressions, which results in very significant manifest differences from place to place. Acknowledging that problem of disunity in the liturgy is what compelled the Holy Father Pope Francis to publish Desiderio desideravi, to urge uniformity in the celebration of the Novus ordo!, having already summarily declared that the Extraordinary Form does not even exist. He treats this in nos. 48-62 (Ars celebrandi).
Pope Francis and most of the Novus ordo world continues to ignore and neglect the greatest fruit of the great liturgical reform of the past two centuries, as commissioned by the Vatican, to the monks of Solemnes over a century ago, the fruit of which is The Roman Gradual and the Liber Usualis. The great revival of Gregorian Chant and Polyphony today (e.g. Musica Sacra) is, by far, the best fruit of the modern reform (and the reform of the reform) of the Liturgy! It is hard to understand what the Holy Father means in this document when he speaks of "the reform" in a monolithic sense apparently unaware that the initial liturgical revolutionaries (i.e. Bugnini and all those who reject Sacrosanctum concilium's insistence on the maintaining of the Latin language as normative in the Roman Liturgy and of Gregorian chant and polyphony having pride of place in liturgical music and reiterated in GIRM, 41, 61) have already been superseded by an ever young and enormous wave of new reformers. The reformed liturgy has already been reformed. Pope Francis seems to be advocating for something which already happened, viz., the proper interpretation of the liturgy which was carried out by his immediate predecessor. It seems Pope Francis never read Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on the proper liturgical reform, e.g. The Spirit of the Liturgy.
This type of isolation in time is typical of the Argentinian psyche. When I visited Argentina 15 years ago it seemed to me that the Argentinians, with their pro-communism and pro-freudianism, were stuck somewhere in the 60's with ideas which the West had tried and rejected.
What the Holy Father seems to be doing liturgically is groping for answers which have already been given definitively by his predecessors, ignoring their enormous contributions. After the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI you cannot speak of the liturgical changes of Vatican II without any reference to his temendous work and insights. Pope Francis claims to speak with "precision" but, in fact, because of his neglect of the "reform of the reform" and "the hermeneutic of continuity" he is actually making what was clear vague.
Desiderio desideravi claims to be a longing for unity. The Holy Father must know that any Catholic "unity" worthy of the name is unity in the fullness of the truth we have received, the Deposit of Faith: cherishing, defending and promoting the same faith/morals/sacramental life in Christ, of every Age.
Pope Francis and most of the Novus ordo world continues to ignore and neglect the greatest fruit of the great liturgical reform of the past two centuries, as commissioned by the Vatican, to the monks of Solemnes over a century ago, the fruit of which is The Roman Gradual and the Liber Usualis. The great revival of Gregorian Chant and Polyphony today (e.g. Musica Sacra) is, by far, the best fruit of the modern reform (and the reform of the reform) of the Liturgy! It is hard to understand what the Holy Father means in this document when he speaks of "the reform" in a monolithic sense apparently unaware that the initial liturgical revolutionaries (i.e. Bugnini and all those who reject Sacrosanctum concilium's insistence on the maintaining of the Latin language as normative in the Roman Liturgy and of Gregorian chant and polyphony having pride of place in liturgical music and reiterated in GIRM, 41, 61) have already been superseded by an ever young and enormous wave of new reformers. The reformed liturgy has already been reformed. Pope Francis seems to be advocating for something which already happened, viz., the proper interpretation of the liturgy which was carried out by his immediate predecessor. It seems Pope Francis never read Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on the proper liturgical reform, e.g. The Spirit of the Liturgy.
This type of isolation in time is typical of the Argentinian psyche. When I visited Argentina 15 years ago it seemed to me that the Argentinians, with their pro-communism and pro-freudianism, were stuck somewhere in the 60's with ideas which the West had tried and rejected.
What the Holy Father seems to be doing liturgically is groping for answers which have already been given definitively by his predecessors, ignoring their enormous contributions. After the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI you cannot speak of the liturgical changes of Vatican II without any reference to his temendous work and insights. Pope Francis claims to speak with "precision" but, in fact, because of his neglect of the "reform of the reform" and "the hermeneutic of continuity" he is actually making what was clear vague.
Desiderio desideravi claims to be a longing for unity. The Holy Father must know that any Catholic "unity" worthy of the name is unity in the fullness of the truth we have received, the Deposit of Faith: cherishing, defending and promoting the same faith/morals/sacramental life in Christ, of every Age.
